On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Bruce Bostwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
William's objection > > seems to be that the decision to moderate him There has been no such decision. We remain extremely reluctant to moderate anybody, for the very reasons you cite. There is discussion, which is necessary for those member of the list who wish to participate in its management to participate. > 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. Such opinions would never be a reason for moderation as long I have a say in it. Offensiveness is not really the issue and I shouldn't have included it in my concerns. My real concern is the non-originality of the postings, using up peoples' attention on posts that add little or nothing to our understanding of the issue or appreciation of William's position on the subject (which in my mind needs no further clarification, unless it changes). It seems to me like "persuasion" with a blunt object, which does, at some point, violate our guidelines. I have never and will never decide that on my own, except in crystal-clear cases of spamming and such. This is far, far from crystal clear and hence we're talking about it. My hope is that some consensus will emerge and the community will have managed the issue on its own. Judging by the responses, it seems that the majority finds the postings as tiresome as I do. There are plenty of non-trivial arguments against religion. Let's see some of those sharp tools instead of the relentless pounding of a dull one, I say. Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
