I agree: moderation

[Leslaw Borowski]

> A list to which one subscribes is not 'in public'. It is a private group of
> individuals who subscribe on a specific set of terms. Usenet exists for the
> purpose of the kind of open discussion you are suggesting.
There is a public of indologists. 300 people is some sort of public. 
Usenet is not a public of indologists.
> I have to pay a telephone charge 
This problem of yours touches me. I suggested some ways of making 
letters thiner. But not all academics are interested only in academic 
matters (of India) and not all academic matters of India are 
interesting for even staunch academics. You should allow people 
some freedom of speech and choose if you want or not to receive 
materials you don't like along with those you like, I think.
>>That's why I think electronic communication should start forming 
>>democratic structures.
 > Fine, that's your opinion. Personally I would like there to be 
moderated lists to which I can subscribe for strictly academic 
discussion. 
Being academic doesn't mean being undemocratic. We could vote for some 
rules for the listand for people to organise voting or moderating 
the list according to accepted rules if we decided the list 
should be moderated.
>Otherwise one is endlessly explaining elementary points to those who 
do not have the tools of scholarship to understand.
Any examples from the past? "Elementary" often means "essential" and 
discussion of "elementary" things may proove revelatory. I do not mind 
even people asking for addresses. Let us help each other. If not let 
us allow to help others for us. 
> Anyone can start a new list. 
It is not true. To gather and keep so many indologists has been great 
effort of a small group of people and we should be very thankful to 
them. But making reforms is quite natural. 
>To say that other people should not have private listgroups 
>restricted in whatever way they choose would be about as
> undemocratic as you can get. Are you really saying this?
If the list were openly undemocratic it did not get much 
governamental or academical support of neither material nor moral 
nature. I don't think lists you call "private" could exists without 
public support. But maybe I'm wrong. 
                                        Lesl~aw Borowski