[WikiEN-l] Who's moderated?

[John Lee]

On 9/6/07, Rich Holton <richholton at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Nick Wilkins wrote:
> > On 9/5/07, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86 at comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> I am not here to fight with anyone. I have absolutely no personal or
> >> professional stake in any of this. And the idea that I have an agenda
> (as
> >> someone suggested) is absurd.
> >>
> >> Stop flailing at the messenger, and open you mind to the message.
> >
> >
> > The idea that you have an agenda is absurd, Marc?  Please do recall that
> you
> > *posted* your agenda on this topic to this list.  As a numbered list
> headed
> > "What I would like to see", no less.
> >
> > In any case, I think that this very thread has shown the remarkable
> > looseness of our moderators.  To wit, we still receive your comments,
> > despite your obstinacy in pressing this issue despite having been told
> > point-blank that you aren't going to get any of the things on the
> > aforementioned numbered list.
> >
> > I believe that this is good evidence that this list is emphatically not
> one
> > in which dissenting voices are quashed, and that this is a good state of
> > affairs.
> >
> > -- Jonel
>
> It's exactly this kind of attitude that makes me nervous. Are you
> suggesting that Marc has engaged in behavior that should result in his
> moderation? What exactly is that behavior?
>
> No one is forcing you to read, let alone *respond* to any of Marc's
> postings. Yet you suggest that he should be moderated because you
> disagree with him and/or are tired of the topic.
>
> I am very glad that our moderators have a clearer understanding of what
> should result in moderation.


I thought the final sentence of Jonel's email made it clear she (he?)
approves of the present situation, i.e. Marc not being moderated.

Johnleemk