[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: List posting rules

From: Dora Scilipoti
Subject: Re: List posting rules
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 09:09:23 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0

On 11/01/2019 07:39 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:

> Ruben is a prolific poster who has already made his case that all this
> is just falsehoods and defamation. We are just going to have to agree
> to disagree on that.

Well, I had never read Ruben's case before, because I joined this list
later (and my subscription request was delayed by almost five days, by
the way.) That may also be the case of the person he is responding to,
or the case of the person his message is related to, whose first and
only post to this list seems to be the one sent on Oct 30. Given that
this is a new relaunch of the list, repetition every now and then may
actually be necessary.

I haven't checked the dates, but another reason that I hadn't read all
of his posts may be that due to moderation, because the messages are
"released" all at once (that is, when the moderator wakes up in the
morning and at best some other time during the day), thus making it
difficult and time consuming to read them all.

 Simply repeating your opinion over and over
> again, while personally attacking the people you don't agree with,
> does not make for a very pleasant discussion.

Please note that the message posted by a woman on Oct 30 contains a
repetition of what we all have already read on dishonest media. She even
clearly says that she hasn't personally had any unpleasant experiences
with RMS, on the contrary, she testifies that he --long before the
feminist fever was even born-- gave her a job. But then she proceeds to
insult the dignity of Richard Stallman repeating a false statement she
picked up from the media. Namely, his "defending sexual exploitation of
minors." That is a lie. There are other serious publications that have
clearly shown that that is false, but she picked from the bad ones to
serve her purpose of denigration by using repetition.

> This list has slightly different posting rules than most other GNU
> lists. Which are often completely open to anyone, or private with
> restricted membership. We believed neither is ideal for a discussion
> on GNU governance issues. So we are experimenting with a lightly
> moderated list to have that discussion.

I went through the archives of this list back to 2012, and I saw no
flame wars up to then. Therefore, there doesn't seem to be an urgent
need for moderation. Under the current peaceful circumstances, messages
should be "released" as soon as they are posted, and only spam should be

So why preventive moderation? Is it that you don't trust people from the
community? Or you trust some of them and not others?

I see that you have finally let pass Marcel's messages. It was about time.

Dora Scilipoti
GNU Education Team

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]