Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:09:22 -0800
Reply-To: Tim Hurlbut <timothy@SYSAD.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Tim Hurlbut <timothy@SYSAD.COM>
Subject: Re: ohway <ensoredcay> (How's your pig latin?)
In-Reply-To: <002f01c4d1e7$c5476ea0$2002a8c0@jiddware.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
People, give it a break. Enough already. Tom is doing a GREAT job.
Why can't you just follow the rules and not curse? Is it so hard?
Tim
censored
-----Original Message-----
From: JD Foster [mailto:jidd@JIDDWARE.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 9:38 PM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject: Re: ohway itshay (How's your pig latin?)
*cough*
Not to discount the work that Tom does, but IIRC Gerry is owned by the list.
So while Tom is the current appointed keeper of Gerry, that does not
necessarily grant him authority outside the will of the community. Because
he is the current keeper and maintainer of the list, he has the access and
*responsibility* of enforcing community standards, or at best his perceived
interpretation thereof. Without a charter, policy statement, or some other
enforceable form of acceptable use policy, we are left to rely upon either
a) Tom's personal opinion of how to censor list discussions or (hopefully)
b) Tom's best assessment of how he believes the listees wish discussions to
be censored.
For my part, I count my name amongst those who think that the censorship of
shit in this context is simply a crock of. Regarding the argument that
little Suzie and Johnny might be reading daddy's e-mail: Bull. If mommy &
daddy are concerned about what Suzie & Johnny are reading (and they *should*
be!), then it is THEIR responsibility to control their children's access to
questionable content. As has been said, the occasional use of provoking
language to emphasize a point, emotion, frustration or other situation is
quite the norm in daily life. The vanagon list a private community and
essentially a microcosm of greater society. It is not anywhere near the
level of accessibility by minors as is publicly broadcast television or
radio.
Censorship of *any* sort ought not be accepted with complacency. Any time a
personally liberty is given up, it always needs to be carefully weighed
against what the benefit of giving up that liberty is. The arguments
presented in favor of censorship thus far do not IMHO justify the cost. I
realize that others obviously feel differently. However if there is an
appreciable number of people who feel that an administrative action is
either excessive or out of keeping with community standards, it *should* be
discussed and settled in some manner.
Cheers,
JD Foster
Estionquay authorityway, espectfullyray.
> The point is the list admin decides what matters.
> Tom works hard to maintain the hardware and bandwidth to make this forum
> possible. It is not for you or anyone else to judge.
| 
