On 21 Aug 2008, at 16:19, Bruce Bostwick wrote: > I haven't weighed in on this yet because I'm sort of a newbie on this > list, and there's probably history to this that I'm missing, but I'm > very familiar with lists where I'm not especailly interested in (or > necessarily agree with) every post I get on every list. Some are > offensive, some are annoying, some I'm just not interested in, and I > tune them out. I'm used to doing that, it's no big deal.
Exactly. There are thousands of posts I haven't read on this list. There used to be some posters that I pretty much never read anything by but they aren't here any more. Nick's complaint is that because he is a list moderator he has to read all the posts. I guess that's just the price that comes with that job. > > > As far as this particular subject goes, I'm probably at least as anti- > religion as William, as far as my perception and opinions are > concerned. My opposition to religion is probably much more specific, > as I've learned a great deal about the more socially damaging elements > of organized religion and can name names and make pretty accurate > guesses as to where the bodies are buried, but I tend to find anti- > religious posts comforting rather than offensive, because they tell me > someone is actually paying attention and noticing that there's > something rotten in Denmark, so to speak. Long posts that are mostly > quoted content from other sources, maybe, maybe not, that's more of a > technical rule, but the overall tone not only doesn't bother me, I > welcome it. I like to see posts denouncing the pernicious poisonous filth of religion too. I find posts about prayer and faith and suchlike offensive and repulsive and feel that opposing views deserve equal consideration. > > > I find the meta-discussion considerably more distracting than the > discussion itself, because the meta-discussion brings the question > into play of silencing a contributor to the discussion, and that > *always* involves some question of whether that person is being > silenced for purely procedural reasons, which may be legitimate in > some cases, or if the person is being silenced because the owner or > moderator *personally* finds the subject matter of the discussion > offensive, which is a more serious concern for me because it begins to > hint at censorship, which I personally find far more offensive than > specific points of view on organized religion. William's objection > seems to be that the decision to moderate him is coming at a point in > the discussion that suggests the decision to moderate him is > influenced by a disagreement with the subject matter as much as any > technical or procedural reasons, if I understand his comments > correctly. If true, that's a very serious (and IMHO legitimate) > concern that should be addressed by this meta-discussion if it > continues. There are no 'technical or procedural' reasons for objecting to my posts on the matter of religion: it's an attempt by some to silence the expression of views they don't like plain and simple. Pernicious Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate. - Richard Dawkins _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
