Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!xanth!mcnc!thorin!unc!oliver
From: oliver@unc.cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Soc.feminism
Message-ID: <10657@thorin.cs.unc.edu>
Date: 21 Nov 89 17:15:41 GMT
References: <21323@usc.edu>
Sender: news@thorin.cs.unc.edu
Reply-To: oliver@unc.cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver)
Organization: University Of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Lines: 30

In article <21323@usc.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
[He doesn't like it that something he posted was rejected]

You really have no cause for complaint.  The bottom line is that
a moderated news group is a censored group, and the moderators
censor as to their whim.  That whim may or may not be accurately
described in the group's charter -- it doesn't matter as long as
the moderator believes that he or she is doing the right thing.

When you submit to a moderated group, you are applying for permission
to post, and have no rights in the matter.  If you don't like 
their decisions, then don't post to the group.  Moderated groups
are and "us" vs "them" phenomenon.  It's a conversation between
"us", without having to listen to "them."   "Them" is defined
as that class of people who don't post like we want them to post.

This is not a condemnation of moderated groups -- I read a number
of them.  But you must remember that open discussion is not
possible, and is not desired by the moderators or by most of the
readers.   Basically, it doesn't matter what justification is 
given for rejecting an article; if you don't meet the moderator's
wishes in a post, you don't meet the moderator's wishes. It's
as simple as that.  The only reason to bother with a justification
is if you are planning to modify your thoughts to bring them
into accord with the moderator's desires.



  
Bill Oliver