I agree: moderation
TANTRAPL at ramzes.umcs.lublin.pl
Sun Feb 12 13:22:11 EST 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