RE: Pete's site is the new Western Front.

["O'Neal, Kevin W." <Kevin.ONeal@vtmednet.org>]

I have to say that I agree with every single thing you have written.
Surprised??!!
I don't agree with censorship or banishment in any form.  No one person
should have this right.  BUT, if a person is clearly destructive (not saying
anyone is) then a line does need to be drawn somewhere.  It can be a tough
decision.  
I think if you read my post on PT site under "White Fang conspiracy", you'll
get a better understanding of where I'm coming from.  I've also done some
explaining on the igtc list today.
As far as the "conspiracy" to post "anti-Fang posts", you're jumping ahead.
There never was any sort of organized attempt to just start slamming Mr. WF.
This was simply talk that IF, let me say again, IF, IF, IF, WF or anyone
started to try and destroy in some way an honest attempt to communicate with
Pete some good 'ol fashion love, then yes folk wanted to gang up and put him
down.  
Hey, that sounds like a reasonable reaction to me.  If my mom is getting hit
by someone, and me and my friends see it, you betcha we'll attack the guy in
force.  I'm sure WF is a big enough boy that he could defend himself of any
messages.
Remember, and I think this is where you are wrong and are misleading people,
there was never, ever, never any discussion anywhere about some sort of
pre-emptive strike against anyone.  Self defense is not against the law
though.
I was a bit dismayed that a couple of my posts (in my opinion very
non-confrontational) didn't get on the list either.  I'm holding out hope
that it was a technical glitch.  I sent Paul an E asking him to find out
what happened.  If it was clear censorship, Who fans will be hearing from me
in a very loud voice, cause I will be pissed.  Other posts of mine are still
making it through though. If Paul is picking and choosing (I don't want to
believe he is) what posts of mine can and can't get in, then this is clearly
editing, and is not fair.  That would be like playing me like a puppet.
We'll see.

All clear now bradda?
Peace out,
Kevin in VT
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Whooooo! [SMTP:whoooo@labyrinth.net]
> Sent:	Wednesday, December 01, 1999 9:17 PM
> To:	O'Neal, Kevin W.; TheWho@igtc.com
> Subject:	Re: Pete's site is the new Western Front.
> 
> 
> "O'Neal, Kevin W." wrote:
> 
> >         Jesus (no, the last time I checked he was not on this list :),
> just
> > checked out Pete's site.  It's like a war zone.  Where did Sean get this
> > conspiracy idea???  Sean, you seem to have a flair for the dramatic.
> This
> 
>     I would love to discuss any topic rationally with you, but every post
> I send
> on the subject never makes it to your list. I am wondering whether this
> one will
> make it. Perhaps you can forward it for me if it "mysteriously" dies in
> transit
> -- assuming you are against censorship.
> 
>     There is a fresh post contemporaneous with yours which forms a
> sufficient
> basis for my assertion that several listers herein wanted to organize a
> set of
> anti-fang posts. There is also a post on the Pete site calling for his
> banishment. I simply believe that orchestrated post-gangs and banishment
> are not
> the way to deal with any perceived problem. What is needed is a referee,
> not a
> mob.
> 
>     Additionally, I will tell you in no uncertain terms that the efforts
> of Big
> Pauley to censor viewpoints on this list speaks volumes about the quality
> of the
> people who compose this place. If you think that property ownership rights
> make
> it "ok" for listowners to provide a fraudulent forum for "discourse" on a
> particular subject, you would be sadly mistaken. A person may or may not
> have a
> legal right to block counterviews on this list, but doing so surely
> renders the
> list nothing more than a worthless cyber rag of propaganda, and a cheap
> and
> cowardly tool for attitudinal manipulation.
> 
>     I would hope you protest the censoring of counterpoint in any form
> forum.
> 
>