medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture
outrageous
this question is not a private matter.
basic freedom of expression, within the context of scholarly discourse,
on this list and off concerns everyone on this list, so i am responding
on-list rather than off.
correspondance on this issue sent to me off-list by list "owners" or anyone
else will be subject to on-list presentation, at my discretion.
or the discretion of anyone who might agree with me and agree to post such in
my absence.
"Ferzoco, G.P." <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>I haven't made this point for some time now, but it's important to
repeat it, I think.
George, i've only been on this list a little more than two years, so i seem to
have missed all of the previous times you may have "made this point."
why on earth you should think it important to "repeat it" is quite beyond me.
>The medieval-religion list exists in order to exchange *members'* views and
queries, not the views or queries of non-members.
and, i only belong to three other scholarly discussion lists in addition to
this one, so i suppose that i am to assume that the frequent, simple, evident
courtesy extended by these other lists --and this one, too, on
not a few occasions, if my memory doesn't fail me-- to entertain
"non-members'" views and queries will no longer be extended on this list?
that's a question, George.
reviewing the welcoming message which i received in October of 1998, i can
find no such mention of this supposedly long-standing limitation to the
discussions which should or may take plce on this list.
specifically:
"What is medieval-religion?
"Medieval-religion is an on-line list that provides a forum for discussions
related to religious life and thought in Europe from late antiquity to the
early modern period. Our aim is to encourage interdisciplinary links between
related fields and areas of research including (for example) art history,
codicology,...."
i'd be glad to search the archives for your previous pronouncements on this
supposed policy, George, if you'd suggest some possible search perameters
(some how i don't think that "Bk XVIII Q 47 a 3 resp" would be fruitful).
>There are several reasons for this; one of them is: if queries or
debates should arise following a non-member's query, it is not always possible
or feasible to refer the debate or discussion to that person,
and wait for that person's reply.
transparently bogus "reasons."
not even worthy of further response.
certainly not worthy of your expressing them, George.
>Is that OK?
no, George, it isn't.
not by a long chalk.
HAVE YOU LOST YOUR MIND??
the arbitrary limitation of dialogue on this list --as exemplified by
your "repetition" of this supposedly long-standing policy-- is entirely
uncalled for and odious in the extreme.
it amounts to nothing less than an attempt --yet *another* attempt, i
have to say-- to impose a sort of censorship on this list.
in the past these not-infrequent, clumsy attempts at muzzling have struck me
as alternately amusing and puzzling; and, always, stupid, counterproductive
and
>Please write me if you have any queries or comments!
been there, done that.
one query, which has been on my mind, at least from the time of the *SHAMEFUL*
treatment of Bill East by the "owners" of this list and the goveling,
selfserving and transparently fallacious "apology" of that treatment offered
to the list by Otfried in a post made memorable only by fact that it was
*totally* unworthy of him:
Is There Some Kind of HIDDEN AGENDA which governs the irratic,
indefensible, dishonorable and shabby behavior of the "owners" of this list,
especially when questions of freedom of speech in the persuance of academic
discourse are involved??
that's a question, George. and i'd appreciate an (on-list) answer to it.
>Best post-Kalamazoo wishes to all,
sorry i missed you, though, now that i've retired from displaying my
wares at the Zoo i can no longer afford even brief excursions into the Jet
Stream.
i had a few things to say, and a few questions to ask.
best from here,
christopher
p.s. i'd appreciate hearing --on list or off-- from any members who feel that
i've missed the mark here.
and, particularly, from any members who agree that the powers of list
"ownership" must be tempered by the defense of the most fundamental freedoms
of expression within the exercise of sholarly discourse, to be
enforced by the membership of the list, if necessary.
disgraceful, dishonorable, ignominious, inglorious, shabby,
____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html
|