Message: 4 Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:00:21 -0400 From: Pandu Lampiao <[email protected]> To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Goanet] Selma's Book INTO THE DIASPORA WILDERNESS launched in Goa today Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Really do not understand the fuss and everyone's obsession with Jo-Goi-International. He is not offending anyone is he? ...................................................................................................... Dear goanetters, In moderated fora, the question is not whether anonymous posters offend or help or amuse or instruct the larger community. I have on many occasions stated that indeed anonymous or pseudonymous writers have done good things. I quite admire joegoauk's photography for instance. However there is a principle, which I will explain with the the shorthand of a adage: what is sauce to the goose should be sauce to the gander. If one lets a few geese be saucy whilst not permitting the ganders the same freedom, it will lead to discord. [However, on exceptional occasions I'm willing to say certain geese and certain ganders may have the sauce. EXCEPTIONAL is the key word.] Given specific circumstances, like for instance the conditions under which Francisco Joao de Costa who wrote under the pseudonym Gip, or the circumstances under which penpricks wrote, I will support their stand for anonymity because there is no way that much of what they are saying, which is for the good of society, can be published otherwise . But such writer/s should be the exception and not be the rule.[If I were an authoritarian person I would have said that they too should abide by the rule and live by the same rules that others do. But as I said, I am prepared to allow exceptions.] While agreeable that people like penpricks and Gip may be the exception I say too that they should not be allowed special rights on all occasions. And only permitted on the exceptional occasion when no other option is available. But joegoauk, pandu lampiao, or xannomoidekar are not doing anything exceptional. They have nothing special to offer to the rest of us that should make them above the Articles in the Constitution of India that deal with freedom of expression. What exactly prevents joegoauk, pandu lampiao, or xannomoidekar who do not do any public service, apart from being amusing sometimes and even informative sometimes, from speaking in their own voices? Common sense tells us that they are not whistle blowers for instance, on issues of corruption, where if they were to speak using their own names, they would be forthwith murdered. So why do they want to be anonymous? My answers to this are two: 1) their egos - these fools cannot bear criticism of their own selves publicly, even as they give themselves the right to criticise others publicly behind a cloak of secrecy. And reason no. 2) is that these people can be used at convenient times by the moderators of goanet to hit out anonymously at members on their behalf against those critical about them, because the moderators know that the anons are obliged to them and will not refuse their requests to hit out at other members. [In this regard I am pretty sure that Admin Noronha has used joegoauk, that is if he is real and not entirely his own invention, to get him to post his own ie FN's photographs to goanet , in the name of joegoauk.] ...................................................................................................... In case I have not been clear so far, let me elaborate, the issue which I wish to put to the moderators of goanet is this: ppenness is the lifeblood of any medium. When a public medium can be used surreptitiously for private benefit, it is risking its credibility. When a public medium can be used surreptitiously to drive private agendas, it is risking its credibility. Such a medium by refusing to remain open in its operations, is suspect. I am ready to accept that there are times when openness is politically impossible, by which I mean that openness would harm the human rights of a speaker. In Goa I know that there are some things which if spoken can have very drastic consequences, even to the extent of the speaker being eliminated. Hence I think that the moderators who are legally liable, should have the right to judge what is and what is not politically impossible. I say that when such an exceptional post comes to them anonymously they should publish it, provided that they point out to others why that particular post was impossible to be posted in the poster's own name. I think that most of the readers of this forum would be quite agreeable to this. But giving blanket approval to allow a few anonymous posters to say what they wish to is wrong. Why should joegoauk for instance be allowed to anonymously criticise migrants to Goa through his photographs? There is no public service done by him in this when he abuses citizens who are acting well within their constitutional rights. And why should xannomoidekar a citizen of the UK get special rights to spout his abuse at others in India? The moderators must think this issue through for they are risking the loss of the credibility of goanet. Augusto -- Augusto Pinto 40, Novo Portugal, Moira, Bardez, Goa, India E [email protected] or [email protected] P 0832-2470336 M 9881126350 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Now available in Toronto, a few copies of *Into The Diaspora Wilderness* by Selma Carvalho. Contact Bosco D'Mello [email protected] (416) 803-7264 http://selmacarvalho.squarespace.com/
