Dear Folks,
 
Hope someone here can help me.
 
I began filtering this person quite a while back after he called
for the posting of uuencoded binary files to the newsgroup that
I gate, rec.music.dylan., then publicly killfiled me when I
told him publicly that this was inconsiderate of those who
subscribe to HWY61-L. I am filtering him because I consider his
insistence that *uuencoded binaries are just fine and "digest
people" will have to live with it* to be a threat. The public
killfiling was unpleasant, but merely the icing on the cake.
 
I've been receiving mail from people who are apparently
his friends, accusing me of censorship etc etc. Most of those
who write are not my subscribers. They are people who access
the group r.m.d. via usenet. Only one person who's asked me about
the filter concept is a subscriber.
 
I have tried to the best of my ability to keep this private. It
would never, ever have occurred to me to drag this out publicly.
 
I've tried to maintain the position that if he just emails me,
to in some way reassure me that he is not going to come right
back and urge the dumping of uuencoded binaries to the group
(and therefore my list and digest), then I will unfilter him.
 
Not only did I find the following post out in gopherspace
today, I am getting mail from other usenetters suggesting
that perhaps a "competitor" will start an "uncensored"
digest. The email is nasty in tone.
 
I don't know what to do. I have 350 subscribers.
 
(BTW, Can someone do that? I thought there could only be one gateway
to a usenet group at a time.)
 
Another usenetter posted some allusion to filtering being done
based on some sort of "moods" (!)
 
I want to maintain my stance, but it's getting rough out here.
 
This has been going on for days at this pitch, in private email,
with this person's friends, but this is the first drastic public
outburst from the person who is filtered.
 
Thank you for any advice. I really need it.
 
Maureen LeBlanc              Listowner: [log in to unmask]
who's almost ready to put her list on hold - but that's what they
want, isn't it...?
 
>From: [log in to unmask] (John Howells)
>Subject: Re: John Howell's posts / Frankie and Albert
>Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
>Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
>References: <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 14:04:43 GMT
>Sender: [log in to unmask]
>
>I hadn't been following this discussion, but lately I can't get away
>from it and thought I'd better read some of the messages from
>[log in to unmask] that pertain to me and respond in my own
>apparently objectionable fashion.
>
>[log in to unmask] "writes":
>
><John Howells knows how to begin to rectify the situation.
><I prefer to discuss a resolution to the present situation privately,
><in email, with John Howells, if he is in fact interested in a resolution.
>
>Oh, I do? What are you talking about? I certainly have no idea what it
>is I need to do to "rectify the situation". I also have no interest in
>corresponding privately on this matter.
>
><>Is this the kind of thing Bob would be proud of?
>
><I like to think so.
>
>This is just too funny! Bob Dylan would be proud of censorship. Excuse
>me, that's "filtering". Big difference. This is one of the wackiest
>notions I've ever seen put forth in this newsgroup.
>
><>Of course, no one on the digest will see this, because it will
><>be CENSORED!
>
><Correcton: Filtered.
>
>This is all semantics. There is essentially no difference between
>filtering and censoring in this case. Filtering is just the more polite
>term, but it's still censorship.
>
><Censored would be if I were to somehow erase your usenet messages.
>
>No, that would be cancelling an article, something the software won't
>allow you to do unless you created it in the first place or have system
>privileges (and with that comes responsibility). Why don't you learn a
>little something about Usenet before you go spouting off and ruining
>reputations? You're supposed to be a list administrator, an invisible
>one at that, but you're running a moderated list without telling
>anyone. If you're going to filter messages by people you don't like,
>TELL your subscribers that's what you're doing and why, and then let
>them decide if that's what they want. What you're doing is censorship,
>pure and simple.
>
><You have the right to say anything you want. I have the right to
><refuse to carry it.
>
>And hopefully your subscribers have the right to give you hell about it
>and demand better service.
>
>You keep saying I this and I that, but you're the admin for a list that
>provides information to a lot of users other than yourself. Why don't
>you think of them?
>
>Oh, and by the way, you can continue to keep me out of your silly-ass
>digest. That would make me very happy.
>
>--
>                                                           John Howells
>                                                     [log in to unmask]
>                       ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/ho/howells/howells.html
>