I haven't weighed in on this yet because I'm sort of a newbie on this list, and there's probably history to this that I'm missing, but I'm very familiar with lists where I'm not especailly interested in (or necessarily agree with) every post I get on every list. Some are offensive, some are annoying, some I'm just not interested in, and I tune them out. I'm used to doing that, it's no big deal.
As far as this particular subject goes, I'm probably at least as anti- religion as William, as far as my perception and opinions are concerned. My opposition to religion is probably much more specific, as I've learned a great deal about the more socially damaging elements of organized religion and can name names and make pretty accurate guesses as to where the bodies are buried, but I tend to find anti- religious posts comforting rather than offensive, because they tell me someone is actually paying attention and noticing that there's something rotten in Denmark, so to speak. Long posts that are mostly quoted content from other sources, maybe, maybe not, that's more of a technical rule, but the overall tone not only doesn't bother me, I welcome it. I find the meta-discussion considerably more distracting than the discussion itself, because the meta-discussion brings the question into play of silencing a contributor to the discussion, and that *always* involves some question of whether that person is being silenced for purely procedural reasons, which may be legitimate in some cases, or if the person is being silenced because the owner or moderator *personally* finds the subject matter of the discussion offensive, which is a more serious concern for me because it begins to hint at censorship, which I personally find far more offensive than specific points of view on organized religion. William's objection seems to be that the decision to moderate him is coming at a point in the discussion that suggests the decision to moderate him is influenced by a disagreement with the subject matter as much as any technical or procedural reasons, if I understand his comments correctly. If true, that's a very serious (and IMHO legitimate) concern that should be addressed by this meta-discussion if it continues. I'm only an ordinary list participant, but I've seen this sort of meta- discussion bog down or even kill email discussion lists. Can we leave well enough alone, or take the more detailed discussion of technical/ procedural issues offlist? And as far as on-list meta-discussion is concerned, can we hear some reassurance that *legitimate* comments and posts against organized religion that fit within the spirit of the list are acceptable? If it's not OK on this list to be against religion, I have some issues with that, especially if it's a cause for being moderated. On Aug 20, 2008, at 9:12 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: > This is not a discussion list about religion. I don't think we've > ever > moderated anybody for frequent off-topic posting, but I'm growing > increasingly concerned that many of your postings are a distraction > and > offensive to some who might otherwise participate. Others,including > me, are > just plain bored with it, since you haven't written anything new on > the > topic for a long, long time. "I'm probably not a typical Texan in that I don't hunt. I fish, but I don't hunt. And it has nothing to do with how I think it might somehow be more holy to eat meat that's been bludgeoned to death by someone else, that's not it. It's really early in the morning, it's really cold outside, and...I don't wanna **** go." -- Ron White _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
