|
From: K. Paul Johnson <pjohnson@vlinsvr.vsla.edu> Subject: Re: fw Juan Cole [bahai-faith] mutilation theology (further) Date: Thursday, September 10, 1998 7:06 PM Richard Schaut (RSSchaut@email.msn.com) wrote: : : FG wrote in message <6t9c1d$m80@news1.newsguy.com>... : >For the umpteenth time, I'm not the moderator, I'm not : >the moderator, I'm not the moderator!!! : : What does this have to do with forwarding messages from makelist? Why : forward any messages at all? Stepping up to bat here: you asked what was different about Fred selectively forwarding posts that espouse only his own POV and the srb moderators selectively rejecting posts that espouse opposing POVs. The difference is that they are *moderators*. They have *power* to determine what gets expressed and what doesn't. They have a policy that requires them *not* to reject posts simply because they don't like or agree with them or their authors. This policy has been ignored or twisted, as I and many others have experienced. Fred has no such power to keep people's views from being expressed. You are accusing him of a sin of *omission*-- not forwarding things you think he ought. He, and I, and others accuse the srb moderators of a sin of *commission*-- rejecting posts, harassing authors, etc. because of ideological factors. That's far more serious. No individual has a responsibility to forward willy-nilly all kinds of posts that espouse all points of view. It's presumed that as individuals people have their own axes to grind and won't grind others' for them. But as *moderators* the folks running srb have a much higher responsibility. They are *not* supposed to be active partisans for a particular viewpoint, discriminating against others. They are supposed to be fair and impartial because they are acting not as individuals but as moderators. : : >I forward what I want, none too consistently, and : >shan't accept criticism lightly for it. : : None too consistently? Why, then, are the forwarded items consistently : those that attack the Baha'i Faith and consistently not items that present : opposing views on the issues discussed in the messages you forward? Well, um, might that be due to human nature? You seem to be accusing Fred of some specific wrongdoing. In fact, have you ever seen *anyone* consistently argue for both sides of a controversial issue in the religious domain? Or forward posts other than those that support his/her own views? Rick, I must say that you in my observation have been every bit as consistent in defending the Baha'i administration and its supporters and attacking its critics as Fred has been the reverse. Pot, kettle. PJ Homepage |