Bill Campbell wrote:
Toto <toto@sk.sympatico.ca wrote:
Good points all, Bill. Now, just turn the pointed finger around slightly so that (for some of the issues at least) it points towards the providers/managers/moderators, etc. Wouldn't it be a gas if this were part of the Grand Plan, waiting only for the provocation? They can argue that one person's posts have worse content than others (or argue the Spam motive), but really, what's it all about besides control? All of you long-time guys survived the war without the moderator's help, am I right?
As a long time lurker (much longer than many of the numerous relatively recent vociferous posters) I *must* speak up. If the dear "Doctor's" posting are indeed a "grand" experiment in newsgroup (or maillist) sociology, then it seems they are akin to experiments in recent history; if the patient dies, so what? There are other lists... While many of you think that the ability of a list to withstand constant spamming is an important issue; the government is busily working to outlaw encryption and privacy, and I fear that much is lost by the side issue of the "how easily can I kill a list". I feel we at a *critical* crossroads in this debate, and one of the more important voices has *very* effectively been silenced.[snip] This is very true, but I cannot understand why you think that the attempt to disrupt and destroy this list a necessary step in the task of resisting this governmental effort.[mo' snip] Again, I can't understand why "killing the messenger" is advancing the issues of privacy and crypto issues. How does the posting of numerous crude anti-Tim May messages promote personal privacy?