Re: [ga] Re: What list forwards to what list

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>]

David Schutt wrote:

>
>No need to do this test, these types of events occur in local politics
>in my area with disturbing regularity. Recently, a city council meeting

>erupted in a 'demonstration' of support for a local politician that 
included
>considerable profanity and other types of derision. It was really an 
attempt at intimidation, but it didn't work.
>

What do you mean?
It did not work because the offenders were stopped, or because they gave
 up?


>But that's not the point.
>
>The point is that it is hard to communicate over the noise of a 
disrupter in a
>physical meeting, the noise is an actual, physical barrier to 
communications.
>This is why in extreme circumstances someone can be compelled to shut 
up.
>
>Communication via email is DIFFERENT. Profoundly different. A 
disruptive email
>does not create a physical barrier to other communications, it is 
trivially
>easy to physically ignore an email. You can communicate just as if it 
didn't
>exist at all.
>
>The only thing left, then, is someones emotional reaction to a post 
that they
>read either accidentally, or because they have a compulsion to read 
every
>message that ends up in their email box.
>

And emotional reactions don't have right of citizenship here, I 
understand.

Anyway, I agree it is very easy to deal with this.
It is sufficient to provide the choice of subscribing either to the full
 record, and deal yourself with emotions and filters, or to a shortened 
version.
Your choice, nice'n'easy.

>Neither of these things clears the hurdles necessary to justify 
silencing
>someone in what should be a public forum.

The rules are not about silencing, but about allowing who does not want 
to listen to tune on a different frequency. Their choice! Why limit 
their freedom?


 If you are concerned and embarrased
>by the possibility of your good name being trashed and abused, use a
>pseudonym. There is a long and noble tradition of that technique being 
used to
>protect oneself in public discourse.
>
>To many people, including myself, this difference is so obvious that it
 is
>difficult to believe that everyone wouldn't *celebrate* this 
opportunity
>to let those with even the most extreme views and grating ways of 
expressing
>themselves have their opportunity to speak their piece.
>
>I find it astounding.
>


Great!

In other words, your idea of the GA is to turn the list into a chat 
line.

And what becomes the voting process, if any?

Regards
Roberto