Let me add a more serious response after my flippant one: Gautam:
>Since it was clearly prompted by an argument with another list-owner, it smacks of intimidation. I clearly agree with that. When only a few members of a group have the power to kick anyone else out of that group, then they have a special obligation to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. While it is mathematically possible for it just to be a coincidence that a post in response to Jeroen was picked out, I don't seriously believe it was a coincidence. Does anyone else? I find it especially bothersome that it happened within a couple of days of Jeroen's "itchy finger" post. If he did contact Ms. Tan, then he technically, _he_ isn't threatening to kick JDG off. But if he did push the absentee list owner to do it, then that would be even worse. Where I come from, grown ups do their own dirty work. >But I would not accept, and would not participate in, a forum that demanded limitations on opinion >speech. I picked where I went to _college_ based partly on that, I'm certainly not > going to be in an internet discussion group that limits itself in such a > way. I agree with that, but have a caveat. JDG's writings were clearly opinion speech. The writings of poster from the past that Julia referred to, was not. Repeated obscene insults need not be protected speech. >If someone chooses to call Jeroen a Nazi, that's their business, and > it's not okay to censor them for it. Ever. Etiquette is etiquette - one > of the things that is implied by etiquette is that it is enforceable only > through social sanction. Right. and enforcing etiquette via social sanctions has worked for years on the list. If JDG had actually called Jeroen a Nazi, I would have written a post suggesting that he should have written what he actually did. Dan M.
