I agree: moderation

Leslaw Borowski TANTRAPL at ramzes.umcs.lublin.pl
Sun Feb 12 18:22:11 UTC 1995

To Richard P. Hayes: Thank you for confirmation that acts (of a 
a few persons) of preventing people from expressing their views in 
public (I call it censorship) are included in the process of 
moderating a list. Thanks for your work too.
To Sid Harth: Strong arguments are good
              if you don't much argue.
Who allots words? My letter was sent ca a month after the previous 
To all interested: I think we can make messages thiner by not citing 
long passages from the previous post and by not giving lengthy 
informations about ourselves and multi-line addresses at the beginning 
or the end of a letter (I don't mean anybody specifically, sorry it 
may looks like that).    Maybe we could agree on a special name (or 
part of it) of the subject, say "organisational" = "org" for short, 
that would let people who are not interested in matters of the way 
the list functions to filter the messages.      I'm happy to hear 
voices saying simply: "I agree.". They support my ideas (signalled in 
my previous letter) about the need for voting on important matters. I 
must stress once more that I think INDOLOGY is great, moderators are 
working really hard (THANK YOU) but I think we should allow people to 
say things we think are wrong or stupid. 
I know I'm raising very general question and one pertaining rather to 
the future of the network but from an "enlightened absolutism" to an 
absolutism with a darker shade the way may not be very long. That's 
why I think electronic communication should start forming democratic 
structures.    Lesl~aw Borowski
PS I got a citation from a publication: "a cyberspace full of 
gatekeepers and fiefdoms, where those who would disagree must learn 
the oblique expression of the dissident under autocracy moderated 
list". So the problems already exist somewhere.         


More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list