Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!ucselx!crash!pro-smof.cts.com!sjackson
From: sjackson@pro-smof.cts.com (Steve Jackson)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: What is a moderator?
Message-ID: <7618@crash.cts.com>
Date: 18 Feb 91 06:56:12 GMT
Sender: root@crash.cts.com
Lines: 25


        Since I'm not a telecom reader (and may never be now - sigh) I
have no opinion on the matter, other than what I've seen posted here.
        If Pat Townsend has been accurately represented, I probably 
disagree with a lot of his opinions. Nevertheless, he's entitled to them.
And I feel that a moderator can legitimately make editorial comments!
        The objections that I saw here seemed very much like personal
flamage: "I don't like his opinions, and he's a prominent person, so
his evil opinions are a threat to me personally, so he must be a wicked
jerk." Pretty lame chain of logic!
        Forging headers, etc., and blaming it on the wicked fascist
baby-eating moderator, is hypocritical in the extreme. That's not 
net.freedom; that's vandalism.
        The net may now have lost a service which was valuable to many.
It does sound to me as though Pat overreacted - but it's tragic to work
hard on a project and have it vandalized, and be subject to personal
attacks, because someone disagreed with your personal opinions. Speech
is free, but only for the politically correct, eh?
        The Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) is
hosting a roundtable meeting in Washington next week. One of the chief
meta-subjects will be "How should the providers of net services interact
with their users?" This will be an interesting case study. I will be
there, and I'll be sure to bring it up, unless someone better-informed
beats me to it!
        Apologies for the long post. But look! No trash.sig!