I agree: moderation

[Leslaw Borowski]

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 
one.
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.