Maybe someone can help me out with this. I don't understand the claims of censorship over a Sysop controlling a forum.

If someone comes into my home and says things that I find inappropriate, am I censoring because I escort the person out of my home? If someone goes into a court of law and becomes disruptive, is the judge a censor because he has the baliff through him out? If a librarian throws out an unruly patron, is he a censor? Does a newspaper practice censorship because they refuse to print my letter to the editor? Does a book publisher practice censorship because they refuse to print my manuscript? Is it censorship because I cannot make death threats to people without having the police knock on my door? Just because I will not give up my "soapbox" to allow you to "preach," is that censorship?

I always through only the government could "censor." If the government said that certain views could not be expressed on this forum, then that would be censorship. However, if a private individual starts a forum and controls it a certain way, or allows others to control it a certain way, that is not censorship. If I feel that my views are not welcome here, there are many other free sites that I can start a forum.

Just my humble opinion. Thanks for allowing me to vent.

-- New Guy (Newguy@Newbie.com), February 01, 2000

Answers

You said it well New Guy.

-- bardou (bardou@ballonneyy.xcom), February 01, 2000.

I think you've got it right. But in most cases, the issue was never as much "censorship" as it was "disruption." I can remember sitting here and seeing the same exact thing being posted again -- and again -- and again -- and you know ... manymanymany times in a row ... so that few other posts even had a chance to get through. By and large, the sysops have been pretty open-minded about what gets posted -- but trying to functionally lock up the site to all other posts is a little beyond the pale. And that, I think, is primarily why some people wound up on the "delete on sight" list.

But either way, you're right -- your house, your rules; their house, their rules. Whether anyone likes it or not is beside the point.

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), February 01, 2000.

I believe that everyone has a right to his or her opinions. However if the manner in which the opinion is presented is not in good taste, then I feel that the SYSOPS have every right to delete it.

-- David Whitelaw (Dande53484@aol.com), February 01, 2000.

I understand your point, and I completely agree. Private citizens do not have to lend their aid to views they disagree with. There is no right to use this forum as you see fit. Only the owners of the forum have the inherent right to set the rules for speech on this forum. Those who say forum sysops are trampling their rights are just plain wrong.

But:

>> I always thought only the government could "censor." <<

AFAIK, this is not the correct usage of the word. Anyone may form a censorious judgement about a piece of work and move to eliminate it from public view, insofar as they have the power to do so. That is why television networks called some of their employees "censors", and why the Catholic church may be rightly described as "censoring" material that they proscribe to communicants.

But these are *permitted* types of censorship under the Constitution of the United States. It is only government censorship that is not permitted. And wisely so, IMO.

Americans balk at the word "censorship" because it has such a bad odor due to so much governmental abuse in so many countries of the world for so many centuries. But, the word is legitimate enough in a private context. Parents can censor what their children see or read in their own homes and we don't condemn them for it. It is just a word, not a crime.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), February 01, 2000.

Agreed. As long as their are internet terrorist spammers like Y2k Pro, there will be the need for diligent sysops. Thanks Sysops!!!

-- X (X@X.com), February 01, 2000.

YO! SHACLEF! YEAH YOU DUDE!!! DO SOME ELEMENTARY RESEARCH BEFORE YOU TROT OUT THAT DISCREDITED TAXPAYER FUNDED AND SUPPORTED LINE!!!

You CLEARLY have not been paying attention to Phil's comments (and he DOES only OWN the boards). There are NO taxpayers funds supporting them.

There are archival threads from December that indicate that this forum is on servers that effectively came from Phil Greenspun's OWN POCKET!!

The UPDATED SERVERS are coming from the pockets of the posters here to the tune of somewhere in the neighborhood of 5-6 thousand dollars, donated by the posters here in a donation matching/swapping system. DO SOME RESEARCH FOR A CHANGE.

Shaclef Cholera. Sheesh

Night train

-- jes a fergetful ol footballe (nighttr@in.lane), February 01, 2000.

What constitutes a horde? Who decides if people are really panicked? perhaps they're disenfranchised, bored silly, drunk, or any of dozens of other possibilities that an uninvolved, disinterested bystander might misconstrue as panic.

A body can pick through a garbage dump and amass quite a pile of trash, and then make some obtuse judgement about the originators of said trash, without really knowing much about them, and be quite, if not completely, misled.

Any argument using the above captured "quotes", when taken out of the original context of the stream of events that evoked them, could be made to paint the participants any number of ways.

Your choice to pick throught the debris and cast a disdainful eye at the players is laughable.

You said yer piece, I've said mine. Flame away.

-- arbitrater rater (bigdaddy@wing.tips), February 01, 2000.

--Jonathan Latimer, re-read the original intent of the forum, you have missed the point from the beginning, and here's a paste of the quote you referenced:

"This forum is intended for people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives,"

OK, clear. this is a forum for people who take the y2k problem seriously, the y2k problem very commonly and clearly relating to the technical aspects of two digit coding. So, you did not and don't take the technical problen seriously, by your very own admission, ergo, you have interrupted a discussion among people who have both the inclinations to think and believe that there is a problem-technically- and they wish to discuss it. That is "trolling"-a prime example. That's why. There's your answer. The basic premise that you took was based on an incorrect interpretation and mis-reading.

-- zog (zzoggy@yahoo.com), February 01, 2000.

Seems we have two opposing camps here, those that are capable of original and creative, if many times wrong, thought, and those that are limited to cut and pasting other's comments, out of context or not, attempting to fabricate the illusion of intelligence...

Give me a creative nut over a neurotic nitpicker any day... :)

-- Carl (clilly@goentre.com), February 01, 2000.

Night train, how did you change your post above from

Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com)

to

jes a fergetful ol footballe (nighttr@in.lane)

Can you tell me the secret, in case I need to change something after I've posted it too?

-- Bobbette (123-look@mr.lee), February 01, 2000.

oh darn

I guess nite train has to go.

sad to see him go

he was SO useful

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), February 01, 2000.

Chuck, you didn't really think it was a secret, did you?

-- Postman (ringstwice@lw.ays), February 01, 2000.

Doh! I don't know why the formatting went so wrong. I will attempt to repost it correctly.

Jonathan

-- Jonathan Latimer (latimer@q-a.net), February 01, 2000.

Latimer:

Don't bother reposting your material, as no one is going to read it anyway. Since you believe Y2K is nothing, you're out of place here, according to the charter of this board. Go away.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), February 01, 2000.

There we go...feel free to (oh the IRONY!) to delete my messed up posts. :) :)

Jonathan

-- Jonathan Latimer (latimer@q-a.net), February 01, 2000.

Oh joy.

Jonathan's back.

*Sigh*

And guess what?... we're still here too... despite your "efforts" to close (i.e. censor) the forum with Philip Greenspun and MIT.

And trolls 'n spammers still get deleted. Go figure.

;-D

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), February 02, 2000.

JL.

What you missed...... All these forums are maintained by the students of PG.., you know, students !!!!!!..... class projects... Missed again ;-)

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), February 02, 2000.

Don't you just love how people express an opinion after the fact?

So, Jonathan, what does bring you here?

While many of us "shoot from the hip" as we're feeding kids, making sure homework gets, done, etc., you seem to take a lot of time to craft your responses... lonely & bored? Sometimes, I wish I had that problem :)

Anyway, to cut to the chase, what's your point? Don't like the board and the way it's run? The vast majority of us who have been here, or lurking here, for a loooong time, have agreed to allow their judgement as to non-appropriate posts in order to keep some focus to the board's content. Don't like it? How much did you contribute financially to keep this place up and running when Phil threw up his hands because it was overloading his resources and patience? Oh well.. go play someplace else... like AOL if they'll take you back...

I've had a few posts of mine deleted, but they deserved to be... :) glass of wine to many, bad day at work, nasty mood in general... glad they did the next morning...

Now if you think we're going to buy you popping in here as a free speech advocate, well, save it...

Ahh, here I go again, wasting my time and energy over a troll... at least he so far is polite :)... wonder how long that's going to last?

-- Carl (clilly@goentre.com), February 02, 2000.

Carl: Jonathan is always polite. It's just who he is. Hi, Jonathan.

I'm much more interested, however, in Chuck being the ol' football player guy. To whoever said that was transparent, I assure you it wasn't transparent to ME. [Then again, I never cared much about WHO posted something. I cared more about WHAT they posted.]

Sorry for the interruption of thought on the thread. You were saying?

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.com), February 02, 2000.

Anita: Jonathan is polite, and refreshingly droll :)

After sometimes lurking, sometimes posting here off and on for the last year or so, I'm surprised I don't remember him, but then again, how many thousands of threads can you follow?

Still, I disagree Jonathan... in every society, some rules of order must be established, and someone appointed to moderate those rules, or else that society dissolves into chaos...

Other than that, do you have something to contribute to the conversation Jonathan? On the subject of y2k and the impact it will, or, as you believe, will not, have on our lives?

-- Carl (clilly@goentre.com), February 02, 2000.