I've been following this for awhile ... and been thinkin' deeply ... about "what it all comes down to".
Well here goes ..... To Hakan: Trimming email ... I suppose ... in a LOOSE way .. is sort of (and I say SORT OF) a censorship. OK?? I sorta agree with THAT. In a, what I call "denotatative", (think "dictionary", word for word, literal) way .... HOWEVER ... HOWEVER ... the reason that (I'm guessing, to most of us) we do not "feel" that it's "censoring" is because in email posting, whenever someone posts a message (trimmed or not trimmed) .... the reader developing a attitude about the post is ASSURED that the original owner of the "trimmed out" post is ALSO READING THE TRIMMED AWAY VERSION OF HIS POST!! THEREFORE ... we are ASSURED ... that if the trimmed out version of a post had lost it "connatative" (what he was "trying" to say vs. what he "literally" said, the intent, the feeling) meaning ... we can be DAMN SURE that he will FIRE BACK (flame). That feedback system .. is why end sorta ends up "not being like censorship". The only time that it WOULD be censorship ... is if the moderator (Keith, in this case) allowed only "some" but not "others" to have their postings seen on the list. But as I have seen .. Keith here allows some pretty "radical" views to be posted (even mine!! LOL). Both from "way one side" ... to "way the other". Because of this ... I'm "pretty sure" that this is not happening. Or at least I hope not. To Jan: hmmmm ... ok ... I'll let you call it editing. BUT WATCH OUT ... and don't let this habit extend to other things. Like if you were a magazine ... or newspaper editor .. or something like that. Cause unlike email, paper reading material does not allow a reader (especially the owner of what you wrote) to "fire back" immediately. As paper stuff usually only gets updated monthly or so. And by that time .... the "public" has already formed an "image" of what the person said. Plus, the ballot voting date may come before the next month's issue. Making a word-owner's rebuttal pointless ... it's too late, the vote count has already been done. So from the vote-count's reflecting how the word-owner feel's point of view ... it kinda would be "censoring". The reason being that the way you "trimmed" (edited) a person's words .... affected (some political process)(some buying habit)(etc). And the word-owner ... being his rebuttal is in "next month's issue" .... was too late. And therefore rendered ineffective. Curtis ------Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:-------- Trimming email is an arbitrary censorship or can be if all the parties do not agree on the trimming... If the original author are not given a chance to agree with your trimming, it is by definition a censorship --To which Jan Steinman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> replied-- I strongly disagree. I majored in Journalism. It's called "editing." ===== Get your free newsletter at http://www.ezinfocenter.com/3122155/NL __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes http://finance.yahoo.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> 4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
