On Sat, 15 Feb 1992 09:20:55 EST Anthea Tillyer said: <stuff deleted> >Junk mail notwithstanding, the fact is that there is a very fine line between >moderation and censorship, probably no line at all. In my opinion, moderation >is, as one correspondent here pointed out, distasteful. I also think that it >is hard to justify. I disagree. In the nearly two years that I have moderated my list I have rejected only three messages. In the first instance I wrote to the sender and explained my reasons. He revised the message and I posted it on the second try. In the second instance I wrote the sender and he agreed that it was not worth posting. He had calmed down and no longer wished to flame a previous posting. In the third instance I posted the message with my editorial comment preceding, asking for the feelings of the list members -- should we continue to post this sort of thing or not? The vote was split, so I made the decision to continue. Perhaps some list owners do practice censorship, but a great deal depends on how you define the term. Is keeping my list to the subject for which it was created "censorship"? Is taming the flames "censorship"? Charles bailey once asked, "Is it censorship if Science rejects an article on the Grateful Dead? Is it censorship if Reference Services Review rejects an article on cataloging serials?" [Search the archives of ARACHNET@UOTTAWA in July 1991 for more on this thread.] I think the reason my list is well focused is more a result of people thinking I *might* censor something, and thus not even sending it in the first place. But I don't remember ever threatening to do this, and I'm really am a pussy cat anyhow. :-) Moderating is not censoring. It does lend a bit of humanity to the network -- my list reflects my personality -- and I think that is good. -- Martin Martin Raish Main Library, Box 6012 State University of New York at Binghamton Binghamton NY 13902-6012