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

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> >Huh?  The so-called "rules" that have been suggested do exactly that -
> >they *impose* on everybody, they *impose* the same approach on 
> everybody,
> >they remove the flexibility of people make their own judgements.
> >
> 
> Not true at all.
> You do have freedom of choice on whether to subscribe to the integral or
>  abridged version.
> If you want to apply your own filter, subscribe to the full-length list,
>  and apply it, but please don't deny to those who do not want to apply a
>  "personal" filter the freedom of using a "pre-set" filter if they 
> choose  to do so.

We're obviously still talking past one another here.

I think we are agreed that there should be one, and only one, posting
address.

As for the unfiltered list, I'm saying that it should be the one and only
DNSO run list.

If someone wants to derive from that content a filtered list, then that
should be a private matter, not paid for by the DNSO, not run by the
DNSO, and with no status in the DNSO.

> No, there's one thing that we don't get, and namely the choice for a 
> user to apply to a solution provided without the need for his/her 
> intervention.

Fine, the user subscribes to one of privately filtered derivative lists.

 
> If you are so sure that people want to apply their own filters, why are 
> you so afraid of a solution that leaves them the choice to the on 
> whether to apply their own personalized filter or an "off-the-shelf" 
> solution?

I'm not, its just that the DNSO should not be in the business of
filtering, it should be a private matter.


> Ready to pick up the challenge, or not?

Not if the DNSO pays for or sponsors censorship.

		--karl--