[ga-abuse] CENSORSHIP

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Here are examples of the problem with our current moderation programme;

1.    Roberto clearly wrote this in jest but it nicely illustrates prior
restraint;

"Last but not least, of course this subject is pertinent to the GA
discussions - I would never had taken the risk of being suspended for
out-of-scope posting ;>)"

Not saying something which may be important for fear of being subjected
to punishment.

2.    Blatant discrimination and abuse of power.

Corliss clearly did not write this in jest, this activity is a personal
attack, is an out-of-scope posting, lends absolutely nothing to helpful
discussion (actually it attacks 2 people), uses, what we call fighting
words in this context, dumb is in fact (if not true) slanderous.  This
comes from someone who is a list monitor.  This follows a history of
this person being involved in heated exchanges that have gotten the
other member banned. The ending "Good Night" is what in sophistry and
debate we call goating.

"Hi William

On Tue, 15 May 2001 00:14:01 -0700, WXW wrote:

> No, Patrick, it wasn't a diversion.

The proof is in front of your nose.  It's your major strategy.
Or the dumb arguments you use when you can't win on merit.

I'm surprised Roeland fell for it ;-).  At least publicly on list.

Nevertheless my proof stands.  QED.

Good night, William.
Patrick"

Now in light of the above I ask that this member, Mr. Corliss be
disciplined. But of course we know that he will not be because he is a
monitor and the alt-chair and he has built a protecting power base.
Strange isn't it that Mr. Walsh and I have both been subjected to this
and yet we have been banned.  It is beginning to look like we use the
banning to protect the power base but not the list. Perhaps when I
return from excile I could help to build some process which would at
least make it look like banning was being implemented fairly.

Best to all and thank all of you for your hard work in keeping the GA
from a code blue.