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