Erik Reuter wrote: > >> Posting the warning onlist was harsh, and I sincerely >> apologize for that. > > Actually, that is the only thing that I am glad you did. > Let me explain. If there is going to be threats and > censorship (direct or indirect) by the listowners, > I damn well want to know about it so that I can be out > the door. (...) > But there _are_ threats and c*nsorship by the listowners. I can�t post my attachments to the list. If someone finds a new schema for gaining money, he can�t use the list for it.
So, the problem reduces to _defining_ what kind of threats and c*nsorship is acceptable. IMHO, if purely technical threats and c*nsorship is what we want, then anyone can be a listowner. OTOH, if we wish to c*nsor name-calling, shouting, harassment, etc, then the listowner must be a semi-lurker [which would _also_ discredit Julia :-)] > The only thing that scares me more than overt > censorship is the kind of covert, behind-the-scenes > censorship practiced in countries like China. > That�s interesting, because here in Brazil when we discuss c*nsorship in the TV and we want to come to an example of a country where covert c*nsorship exists, we cite the USA :-P Alberto Monteiro
