Censorship (was: Holiness Bashing?)

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

On Fri, 17 Apr 1998 16:33:06 EST "SHAW - MATTHEW"
<mshaw@teleplex.bsu.edu> writes:
>I concur that this should be done without offense, but we should all 
>be able to freely post on topics of holiness.  
>
>We might learn something, and censorship is a bad thing if it filters 
>only one side of the opinions.

I have seen the times that a subject is really getting out of hand and
then volia, it dies off. AT other times, the moderators zot off some
posts that bash anothers integrity. No matter what the big ugly galoot
did, you do not have a right, to call them a big ugly galoot on a public
list! Also the biggest reason I have discarded a posting is that we still
have a lot of "unbalanced" postings. Too much of the original is resent
and then not enough added. At up to 80 mails at a whack to weed through,
sometimes the person is not sent a courtesy letter, just never heard from
on that post.
Bro Shaw, you have been around this list a long time, surely you do not
think that moderation is the same as censorship? If so you need to search
the archives. It is not the same. I would have censored the whole joke
thread and the whole resignation thread. They stand and can be judged due
to moderation, not censorship. I approve some postings that are not what
I would write, but since they do meet the criteria of sound reasoning,
and balanced writing and do not bash another's intelligence, then they
stand to be judged also.

Brian

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]