re: censorship

[Sroundtable@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 5/13/2003 5:30:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, TheWho-Digest-Owner@igtc.com writes:

> No problem in stay on topic, since the standards be 
> worthful to everyone, 
> without exceptions.

I must agree.  Not long ago Scott Schrade took the time to go through the archives and catalogue my posts for one entire month into categories.  He emerged with statistics on how many non-Who posts I had, how many mentioned a listers name in the subject heading (not sure why this is a sore spot for people here), how many were political, and how many mentioned the Who coverband I am in.  Basically he was putting a large portion of blame on me for keeping the list off-topic.

I decided to lurk for a few days, and do my own statistical analysis.  In two days with no Mc posts, more than half were non-Who and political, and 75% of Scott's posts were political or non-Who.  My statistical analysis in response to Scott's was censored twice and never made it on-list.

The content standards here are clearly set by the listers.  Of course we should focus mainly on Who-related topics, but sometimes during periods of Who inactivity or when major events in the world are happening, we want to communicate with people we have come to know, in a sense.  It isn't that hard to skip posts if one doesn't wish to read them.  If things go too far, Paul should step in.  Censoring certain people's posts is pretty unfair.  We should all be held to the same standard.

Mc