> why are you taking this personaly?
I am not.
> What i am emphasising is that the concept of moderation is
> inherently evil as it sets up one person in judgement over others.
> Which is alien to the philosophy of freedom we support here. We are
> not china, with 30,0000 big brothers looking after our behaviour and
> habits.
Ah. Moderation is evil, because it sets up one person in judgement
over the others? So are you indicating that kicking/banning requires
NO judgement. I find this funny.
> anyone stupid enough, careless enough to get his mail account
> infected by such viruses is a menace to the community and deserves to
> be booted. You dont blame the birds that get flu - you just cull them
So next time you get infected by a fever, malaria, or any infectious
disease be prepared to get KILLED, and NOT CURED.
> law and democracy have nothing to do with mailing lists. Admin is the
> boss - if he boots you are booted.
Wonderful. I am impressed. But going by your previous argument "moderation is
inherently evil as it sets up one person in judgement over others",
don't you think this is self-contradictory?
> please distinguish between mere breaches of etiquette - not trimming
> posts, top posting, getting OT, being longwinded, using smsspeak -
> with behaviour that damages the list. The first requires peer
> pressure to rectify, but the second can only be cured with the boot.
> And i think anything personal you may have against me could be taken
> offlist.
Nonsense. You mean to say that ONE spam is going to destroy the list,
while HUNDREDs of OTs and other nuisances are mere breaches of
etiquette. What if I say that the spam was another OT post missing the
appropriate tag? I mean I am simply unable to distinguish.
Cheers,
Debarshi
--
"I'm tired of all this nonsense about beauty being only skin-deep.
That's deep enough. What do you want, an adorable pancreas?"
-Jean Kerr