On 20/02/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
on 2/20/07 8:55 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG at
guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net wrote:
Helping you not to make a fool of yourself?
It's one possibility,
anyway.,
Guy (JzG)
Come on, Guy; that's about as subjective as it gets. You're going to do me a
favor by censoring what I write?
It's pretty much the definition of a moderated list; that some
messages, at some point, are not let through. This is, historically,
necessary so that reasonable discussion is not drowned out by a
cesspool of people frantically wanking over adding photos of shit to
articles.
(Literally - early-mid 2005, I think. The least erudite trolling I've
seen on the list...)
Call it "censorship" if you want, but I don't see any reason we should
just let people write screeds of virulent hatemail to a
wide-distribution, specific-purpose discussion list. This does exist
for a purpose; that purpose requires we play nice.
In the specific case in question, it doesn't help that "abusive admin"
or "admin abuse" is a shibboleth - people who cry that tend, on
examination, to almost invariably be talking nonsense. I don't know
why, nor do I know why the people most prone to seeing VAST
CONSPIRACIES against them seem to all come up with the exact phrase,
but it's got a pretty good hitrate.
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk