Forwarded message:
Jim Ray wrote:
I'm sure John's quaking in his boots. Reread my campground analogy, and try to refute it. You can't. Go start your own list with no moderation. Go start a more moderated list than John's, like Perry's will be. Do whatever, but this moronic thread must end!
I run several lists and have for quite a few years. In that time I have never censored any member. I have had similar instances as to Vulis and my responce has been and will continue to be. "This is your problem, I have no authority to prohibit membership or submissions of members of the list. If you wish to not see such submissions from some party then it is your responsibility to deal with it. In short, either unsubscribe or filter."
Ironic, isn't it? Jim says "this moronic thread *must* end", and yet, this very list that is John's *private* property is filling up with rants about censorship. Tsk tsk.
I never said any such thing. Please quit attributing comments to me which are untrue.
Maybe next time they'll make it more apparent at subscription time that there's no assurance of free speech here!
The fact that it is 'private property' is irrelevant to this issue. Most 'presses' are private property. Trying to change the subject won't work. As to making it clear at subscription time what the actual operating rules are is my EXACT point. In fact you are agreeing with my position. At the current time there are no indications at log on that this list is considered private property, that the operator reserves the right to edit or refuse submissions, etc. which is what makes it a 'public' list and what makes him legaly liable for the cencorship he has enacted without warning. I have been on this list for several years and at no point in that time have I agreed to anything which gives the operator of the list my permission to modify or refuse my original submissions. If he or a third party wishes to refer to them in part or in toto in their own submissions is fine. That is the whole point of the list. Jim Choate