[ga] [Fwd: Darrell misses my points] Proofed version

[Joe Kelsey <joe@zircon.seattle.wa.us>]

Weisberg writes:
 > Subjective criteria for filtering are not a good idea for a public
 > list.

I think that we are, once again, arguing past each other.  The criteria
listed in the current rules are as objective as possible.  Also, this
"public list", is, in fact, a focused discussion group, not a soapbox on
Hyde Park Corner or any other "public" area.  This discussion list is
maintained by a private corporation and is open to those who are willing
to abide by civil behavior and fairness rules.

In point of fact, nothing the Supreme Court of the United States, nor
the court of any other country has anything to do with the operation of
a private discussion list.  You simply choose to ignore this point and
continue to make the mistake of equating any list that appears on your
private computer via e-mail with a public forum such as Hyde Park
Corner.

Unless the discussion list is hosted by a particular country government
or otherwise explicitly sponsored as such, government rules do not
apply.  Thus, the notions of "censorship" that Karl, Ellen and others
have thrown around simply do not apply.

If you care to compare this to traditional electronic discussion groups,
we can look at various models from Usenet.  There are open, free-for-all
discussion groups, and moderated, focused discussion groups.  I see no
one challenging the moderated lists as "censoring" anyone.  Why should
this list be any different?

/Joe
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html