i see you'd rather not answer my questions directly. you also seem to
want to suggest that kent put himself on "review" status.
i'll have to presume this list is now a "red zone".
as for suggesting i go elsewhere - i've been a happy poetryetc
subscriber for years, but now ... it seems obvious that only certain
points of view are welcome.
thanks, but i won't leave [until i'm kicked out].
i happen to think that people need to be exposed to that which they
would not necessarily seek, to topics and points of view that are
perhaps strange or irritating. i think that to routinely filter out
contrary opinions is dangerous - it's not my idea of democracy [or
freedom].
steve
on Fri, 20 Jul 2001 23:42:57 -0400
Candice Ward <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> That will be up to Kent. Each listee's settings are his/her business
>> and for him/her to communicate to others as s/he wishes. The only
>> reason I announced the current status of Kent's Poetryetc posts was
>> because he kept asking me to do so rather than simply posting an
>> announcement to the list himself. The review setting applies to the
>> kinds of posts that would compromise the list or its server. Kent is
>> as free to post his opinions on everything under the sun as anyone
>> else on the list, including his opinion of the action we took to
>> ensure the continued integrity and existence of Poetryetc for its
>> other 180-odd subscribers (including you, Steve). He is also free to
>> unsubscribe and seek a poetry discussion list that better meets his
>> needs (as are you, Steve).
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Candice
>>
>>
>>
>> on 7/20/01 10:30 PM, steve duffy at [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>
>> > i wonder if the list is to be informed if kent's posts are actually
>> > blocked? i wonder if the list will be given the reasons [chapter and
>> > verse] for such actions if posts are blocked?
>> >
>> > i also wonder if kent will be suspended if one of his posts should prove
>> > unacceptable to the listowners? in other words, would kent be blocked
>> > then gagged in order to prevent him commenting on your decision?
>> >
>> > if this list is to become a "red zone" then i'd rather know than live
>> > with an illusion of openness.
>> >
>> > steve
>> >
>> >
>> > on Fri, 20 Jul 2001 21:08:13 -0400
>> > Candice Ward <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> At Kent's insistence, I hereby inform the list that, due to concern
>> >>> over his stated intention to post material directly to the list which
>> >>> might pose a risk of copyright-infringement liability for Poetryetc
>> >>> and/or JISCmail, his posts have been flagged for review prior to
>> >>> forwarding to the rest of you. He can still post to the list as
>> >>> usual, but thus far he's elected to use the back channels, which is
>> >>> his prerogative, as is yours to set your filters accordingly.
>> >>>
>> >>> Best,
>> >>>
>> >>> Candice
>> >
>> > o
>> > + . o
>> > dEbRiS <><
>> > e [log in to unmask] . ><[[[[º>
>> > web http://www.debris.org.uk
>> > scattered_fragMents.l0ose_materiALs.etc o
>> > . / . . ||| . / .*-|/-* delete?
>> > |||||||||1|||||||||2|||||||||3|||||||||4|||||||||5|||||||||6||||||||7||
>> > exit
o
+ . o
dEbRiS <><
e [log in to unmask] . ><[[[[º>
web http://www.debris.org.uk
scattered_fragMents.l0ose_materiALs.etc o
. / . . ||| . / .*-|/-* delete?
|||||||||1|||||||||2|||||||||3|||||||||4|||||||||5|||||||||6||||||||7||
exit
|