moderation

[cejka at praha1.ff.cuni.cz]

I belong to those members of the list who are not professional indologists
(I'm only a student of this field), however
I AM STRONGLY FOR MODERATION OF THE LIST
I do not think that moderation can be compared to censorship as censorship
rather evokes goverment controll of opinions to be published, but moderation
is more similar to the work of an editor-in-chief of a magazine and if he
does not publish one's opinion one is not prohibited to express it
elsewhere. So what censorship?
If I decide to talk about indian politics I may even send my message to some
of the members of the list directly - no problem!
When I subscribed to indology list which claimed to be academical I expected
that I would get only messages about classical indology or closely related
topics and not long discussions about politics, subscribtion requests etc.

Anyway, the discussion about moderating yes or no increases, what about
really voting about it. First we should make a "referendum" about it and
than discuss if Dominik or anybody else will really agree to do it.
Please do. The list is for me and many others (I think) the only means of
contact with the other indologists and possibly amateur indologists of the
world, but it becomes so time-consuming	sometimes to delete all what is not
relevant. It is however not the only place to express one's ideas if they
are "moderated out".

Jakub Cejka, Charles University, Prague
P.S. It is a good idea to have conventional subject titles as "org." which
was proposed.

-- 
cejka at praha1.ff.cuni.cz