ENOUGH!!! (was Re: Privacy from whom?)

[Darin McBride]

On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 23:32:50 +0100, David Gaskill wrote:

>On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 22:32:58 +0100 (BST), Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
>>On Wed, 9 Aug 2000 13:40:19 -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>>>    Well, it is time for me to reiterate the one rule on /this/ list.
>>>
>>>    Don't moderate.
>>>
>>>    There are no moderators here, ok?  None.  This list is hosted by 
>>>me, run by me and administrated by me.  I have made the choice 
>>>that there will be no moderation of the list.
>>
>>Well you have just moderated, so this sounds rather like hypocrisy. If 
>>'anything goes' is the policy on this list, then why not a few 
>>complaints? You can't have it both ways.
>
>Sorry, I don't see where Steve has moderated. Please could you clarify?

By "ruling" on Paul's moderation attempts.  Steve is attempting to
quash a conversation - that the conversation that is being quashed is
another moderation attempt is not really relevant - which is part of
moderation.  At least, according to Steve's convoluted rules it is.

[It's very difficult to prevent self-moderation in an anarchist world -
someone always tries to grab power - even if it is as little as saying
"shaddup!".]

>>It's the several hundred messages of garbage 
>>that are, and God knows there is enough of it out there, without having 
>>to suffer it here as well.
>
>One man's garbage is another man's wisdom - many of the inhabitants 
>of this mailing list seem to me to be articulate and intelligent even though 
>they cling to OS/2 and encrypt their e-mail.... 

True - I didn't mind the privacy discussion that much myself.

>>>    So, again, don't try to moderate, don't presume to moderate, don't 
>>>even think about it.
>>
>>You're the thought police as well now eh?
>
>I don't see Steve trying to tell you what to think. He is simply saying that 

Are you blind?  Steve said, and you quoted it, "don't even think about
[moderating]".  Steve is being very direct in telling people what to
think.

>as proprietor of the list he will decide whether or not it is to be 
>moderated - it is his list and he is therefore entitled to determine the 
>rules. Don't see any sign of the thought police in that ...

This is true - but it doesn't change the circumstances any.