Hiya,

Hugh wrote:
>Anthro-l developed rules due to a problem subscriber in Australia, who
>subsequently set legal precedent by being successfully sued for electronic
>defamation...
Really.  In which country?  Could you give us an overview of
what happened?

>Basically he was a jerk, and driving people off the list.
>We told him to be nicer, and he abused us too. So we kicked him off. Then
>we set basic rules (e.g. no ads, no ad hominem attacks, no legal
>violations, no defamation, etc.) and added them to our welcome message. We
>appended a note stating that everyone should readthe entire welcome
>message, and that by receiving it and remaining subscribed, they were
>agreeing to its terms. (This may not be legally binding, but does about
>all we can easily do really.)

Right... It's ok to disagree, but it's not ok to get verbally
abusive doing so.  I've also included that (by confirming their
subscription they have agreed to participate consistantly
with list guidelines) in the LISTSERV'S request to confirm their
subscription. I also have a htmled version of the guidelines
for participation linked from a list member's resource page,
the URL for which is displayed in the bottom banner for each
list message. See http://www.topchoice.com/~psyche/lists/listnorms.html

Out for now,
Betty