Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks maiing list
Cynthia H. Brown wrote:
Beauty, flames and censorship are all in the eyes of the beholder. However, by providing both "raw" and "cooked" versions of the list, Sandy is allowing readers to choose for themselves whether or not they want someone else's filters applied to their mailbox. Personally, I choose to press the "Delete" key myself. Agreed, and said private individual can do as s/he sees fit. My only objection is that the moderated version has the same name as the original list (sounds like Rogers Cable's recent attempt at "Costs More Unless You Speak Up Now" channels).
I apologize for intruding, Cynthia, but I have a question about "doing as s/he sees fit". For example, what is the list? Is it the equipment, is it the software that runs on the equipment, or is it the contents of the list (my writings, your writings, etc.)? If I had to rank them, I would rank the contents as being more important than the equipment or the software. That said, how can those contents be considered the property of the list owner/manager to do with as they see fit? I do understand that they have the right to manage the list as they see fit, and to move the messages into whatever buckets seem appropriate, but your phrasing suggested more to me, and I'm puzzled by it.
Regardless of which side you take on this matter, remember that the issue was forced by the actions of an extremely small segment of the list "population." The decision of that small segment to excercise its rights "in extreme" passed the tolerance thresholds of increasing numbers of list members, and the end result was a "restriction" adopted/elected/forced-on (colour it however you chose) on the entire "population." "Rights" are derived from social responsibility; its either that, or the "law of the jungle." -r.w. On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:
Cynthia H. Brown wrote:
Beauty, flames and censorship are all in the eyes of the beholder. However, by providing both "raw" and "cooked" versions of the list, Sandy
<SNIP>
I apologize for intruding, Cynthia, but I have a question about "doing as s/he sees fit". For example, what is the list? Is it the equipment, is it the software that runs on the equipment, or is it the contents of the list (my writings, your writings, etc.)? If I had to rank them, I would rank the contents as being more important than the equipment or the software. That said, how can those contents be considered the property of the list owner/manager to do with as they see fit?
I do understand that they have the right to manage the list as they see fit, and to move the messages into whatever buckets seem appropriate, but your phrasing suggested more to me, and I'm puzzled by it.
Rabid Wombat wrote:
Regardless of which side you take on this matter, remember that the issue was forced by the actions of an extremely small segment of the list "population."
Exactly. The same think happened at Kent State, when an extremely small segment of the student body forced U.S. Government forces to shoot them.
The decision of that small segment to excercise its rights "in extreme" passed the tolerance thresholds of increasing numbers of list members, and the end result was a "restriction" adopted/elected/forced-on (colour it however you chose) on the entire "population."
Speaking of 'colouring', Mr. Rabid Revisionist-smallsegmentinextreme, perhaps you might be so kind to explain the use of the word 'elected' as it applies to an announcement that a single individual had decided to act for the good of all, irregardless of the wishes of others.
"Rights" are derived from social responsibility; its either that, or the "law of the jungle."
Social responsibility includes speaking up when the king has no clothes, except for the armband with the Swastika on it.
participants (3)
-
Dale Thorn -
Rabid Wombat -
Toto