I agree. I often don't participate in conversation threads online (including on this forum) for precisely that reason, because they seem to degenerate too easily into name calling and other nastiness. I like having a moderated forum, but the problem is always how to draw the line between moderation and censorship. At the extremes its easy (usually) -- the totally whacko responses are generally obvious. But the closer we edge in toward the center the more dificult it becomes to tell crazy criticism from truly valuable criticism, and I always have to aware of my own biases and anxieties. Is this criticism really crazy or does it just make me uncomfortable for personal or ideological reasons? Am I rejecting it for legitimate reasons or am I just protecting my belief system? It is never an easy line to draw and I think we have to err always on the side of letting in more criticism, not less. As much as I hate it .... ----- Original Message ----- From: Pat Mathews<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 7:55 AM Subject: RE: CITOKATE
Some of the criticism I get on a forum supposedly dedicated to intellectual analysis of a theoretical book has so often degenerated into name calling that they set up a special Flame Wars thread just for that. Did it work? No. So be prepared to filter out a lot of "Fascist!" "Well, you're a Liberal, so of COURSE you hate America!!", not to mention sexual innuendo etc. I think most criticism needs an On Topic moderator. http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/<http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/> _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l<http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l> _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
