Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!pacbell.com!decwrl!shelby!eos!data.nas.nasa.gov!amelia!prabhu
From: prabhu@nas.nasa.gov (Dinesh K. Prabhu)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Censorship and soc.religion.eastern - Opinions(1)
Message-ID: <1990Nov10.094510.5837@nas.nasa.gov>
Date: 10 Nov 90 09:45:10 GMT
References: <1990Oct24.074140.20304@nas.nasa.gov>
Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Lines: 52
Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov


From: williamt%athena@Sun.COM (William A. Turnbow)

	Personally I have no problem with it used in the context that it
was used.  A moderator's job, IMO, should be to filter out *flames*,
and off topic material -- not to censor or change _how_ things
are said.

    Admittedly, I don't have a preference for those words, but that
should be the choice of the poster -- not the moderator.  Editting a
message changes the character of the poster's message.  To reject it is
rejecting something that could be of useful content to some or many.
Besides, the language in which a person expresses his thoughts is often
indicative of the person.  If someone uses swear words too much, or
gratuitously, that also reflects on that person.

-wat-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: SECBH@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (Jack Carroll)

Thank you for consulting the group.

I regularly read a few other moderated groups and "censorship" - for
me hasn't been an issue - except in soc.religion.christian.  In
that particular group the moderator has taken it upon himself
to create rules without consulting the readership, he limits the
number of postings on a given topic and he regularly appends his
own comments to the articles submitted.  In short, he runs the
group as a personal fiefdom.

Your example and your suggestion for handling the need for "censorship"
seems to me very acceptable.  An opportunity for a poster to edit and
resubmit an article should ensure that no is kept off the net by
the personal whim or preferences of a moderator.

Thank you for bringing this to the group.

Jack Carroll
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: lacey@buster.cps.msu.edu (Mark M. Lacey)

A word in itself is just a word.  Although some might find it offensive,
others may see how it shows a point.  When people overuse words that
many around them see as offensive, they are usually not taken very
seriously, and their opinions are simply disregarded.  I think that if a
person feels that a certain word will help illustrate a point, they
should be allowed to use it to do so.

Mark M. Lacey                                         (lacey@buster.cps.msu.edu)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------