Re: [ga] Comments from Pawlo

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Wed, Jan 19, 2000 at 12:06:00AM +0100, Mikael Pawlo wrote:
[...]
> 
> I suggest there be only one (1) sanction, that is suspension. If the
> sanction is needed suspension is a fair punishment, monitoring
> (censorship) does not make sense.

Proof by assertion?  Why does it not make sense?  It makes good sense 
to me.

[...]

> >Note that due to technical issues, monitoring one member's postings may
> >cause monitoring to be applied to other members' posts.
> 
> Obviously this is not acceptable - this just another reason to strike the
> sanction as such.

There is a weakness in the wording.  I believe the intent is that the 
offenders postings will be *moderated*; but that moderation may require 
that other's mail be monitored.

That is, the offenders mail may be censored, but the other monitored 
email will simply be viewed, because it may be difficult monitor only 
one user from a technical standpoint.

*Monitoring* mail, of course, is completely acceptable -- it's a public 
list, after all, and there can be no objection to somebody reading it.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain