Moderation?

While I understandand and can relate to much of what has been written 
about the problems of message volume, and general static, I can't help feeling 
that something would be lost if moderation were put in place. 

What is distressing about much of what is written in the press about the
net is the attitude and viewpoint from which it is written. It is 
invariably a round up of the usual deviant suspects and and places 
an emphasis on any negative aspects of the net that can be found. This 
viewpoint and coverage can only bring regulation all the sooner.

This list however has always seemed to represent the attitude that a little 
anarchy is a good thing, in opposition to so much of the coverage one sees.

It has its problems, but the benefits are what keep everyone tuned in.
I would prefer the occasional reminder that "Cypherpunks write code",
to a censor by another name.



					J.Burke

In message <9405131825.AA49030@acs.bu.edu>you write:
  > It has its problems, but the benefits are what keep everyone tuned in.
  > I would prefer the occasional reminder that "Cypherpunks write code",
  > to a censor by another name.

I agree. While moderation could help the signal to noise ratio; I think
that the messages not approved should still be posted, just with a standard
indicator suitable for filtering by those who wish too.

Linn H. Stanton <stanton@acm.org>

The above opinions are exclusively my own. If anyone else wants them,
they can buy them from me. Easy terms can be arranged.
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.3a
 
mQBNAitK8+EAAAECALzK83DH79m7DLKBmZA2h9U33fBE80EwT4xRY05K7WRfxpO3
BmhPVBmes9h97odVZ0RxAFvinOl4wZGOb8pDclMABRG0IUxpbm4gSC4gU3RhbnRv
biA8c3RhbnRvbkBhY20ub3JnPokAVQIFEC2u0NyIwD3rAd2buQEB4ggB/R72gmWG
FJACaoxKijfLZYEiyGOZI3xB6oQSOsV4D1EZ1jVn7UV0Orh4hCbm/bcJbacA5qCh
UkfTwFPq1qvM4mC0J0xpbm4gSC4gU3RhbnRvbiA8bHN0YW50b25Ac2hlYXJzb24u
Y29tPg==
=HQq9
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----