Re: RE: [ga] Re: What list forwards to what list

["!Dr. Joe Baptista" <baptista@pccf.net>]

No were not.  Censor free that is.  My messages are all held in a queue
until elizabether personally reviews each one and then they get forwarded
on.  So far it looks like all are forwarded to the list - and the only
problem is a delay on her end.

Now I have no idea why they are doing this.  But once again I call Roberto
a liar.  Because I'm still being censored, elizabeth must masturbate each
message personally before I get my say.

So there.

On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Karl Auerbach wrote:

> 
> Thanks for confirmation that we are currently "censor" free.
> 
> As for the distinction between bad behavior and censorship.
> 
> There is indeed some awful, terrible garbage that nobody ought to be
> expected to tolerate.
> 
> To me that intolerable garbage is e-mail that says "censorship is OK".  
> To some that intolerable garbage is e-mail that makes references to bodily
> functions.
> 
> But should the reaction be to gag the speaker or to individually block our
> ears.
> 
> I chose the latter approach.
> 
> Indeed, I do have filters send e-mail with suspicious strings, into either
> the bit bucket or a special mailbox that has a close proximation to a
> garbage can.
> 
> And I do have filters that send e-mail from certain characters into a
> similar mailbox (but I send no purported person automatically to the bit
> bucket.)
> 
> I've discovered that it is occassionally worthwhile to read some of the
> auto-filtered garbage.
> 
> What I've found is that people do go through phases.  Sometimes a great
> insight arises from such an unusual place (indeed, one of the best
> insights I've had about some research I'm doing at the company I work for
> came from someone who is routinely blackballed from several lists.)  And
> sometimes people reform.
> 
> Tolerances, or lack thereof, for this or that kind of thing are something
> that varies from person to person.
> 
> My tolerance for sleazy language is pretty high and my tolerance for
> censorship is extremely low.  Clearly others have different patterns of
> acceptable and not-acceptable content.
> 
> It seems to me that given the fact that it is very likely that every one
> of us has e-mail tools that can filter content, we ought to place the
> burden of molding one's e-mail reception to one's own prejudices and
> tolerances ought to be a personal matter.
> 
> Indeed, if it helps, we can share our filters.
> 
> There's no need to reduce the conversation to the lowest common
> denominator, which is what censorship of a list does.
> 
> The GA has a tough job to do - the biggest is accumulating some actual
> power to make decisions that stick - and that's going to take some solid
> head bumping, with associated smoke, flame, angry words - the normal side
> effects of tough issues.  We don't need to add to our burden the need to
> constantly watch over our shoulders as we type to look for the falling axe
> of the sargeant at arms.
> 
> 		--karl--
> 
> 
>