So why even bother chartering Usenet groups (lists, whatever), then?
Let's just throw away the thousands of groups/lists that have different
topics and have one, big (BIG) mailing list with everyone on the Net on it.
Talking about whatever they want to talk about. Won't that be fun?
Look, it's really simple. Groups/lists have topics. Charters are written
to define, as best as possible, the limits of those topics. Unmoderated
groups attempt to enforce their charters with peer pressure. Moderated
groups do not have to resort to that -- the chosen moderator has the power
to enforce the charter.
Nobody has the "right" to be on any particular list. Like someone else
said, this ain't the open microphone in the town square. If you want to
hear rants, go look for alt.rants. It's probably there.
Hal
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of
Anthony Atkielski
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 4:44 AM
To: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked
I'm really not interested in the opinions of people
who continuously rant and spam off-topic posts and
it seems that opinion is shared by a lot of
people on the list.
That's what killfiles and filters are for.
I _am_ interested in the opinions of people, no matter what those
opinions are.
I don't see why the world must be censored at the source just to meet your
standards of what you do and don't want to see. And claiming to
represent the
majority is irrelevant, even if it is true (and I'm not convinced
of that),
because it is technologically quite possible for each person to
censor his own
mail at his recipient end--it is not necessary to censor at the
source, unless
your real objective be to prevent _others_ from reading anything
of which _you_
do not approve.