Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!apple!bionet!lear From: lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: disgusting slime (was Re: A SERIOUS DILEMMA FOR THE NET) Message-ID:Date: 23 Sep 88 04:50:15 GMT References: <265@sulaco.UUCP> <5572@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> <267@sulaco.UUCP> <3144@utastro.UUCP> <2595@csccat.UUCP> <7203@gryphon.CTS.COM> Organization: Natl Computer Resource for Mol. Biologists Lines: 19 To: oleg@gryphon.CTS.COM Oleg Kiselev argues that setting minimum standards for language and conduct violates some form of freedom of speech. He then goes on to explain that there are tools to help a user avoid the cruft. What Oleg is missing is that we all agree there is cruft out there. The point at which an article is not cruft is hazy but we all agree that it is out there. What I would like to see is a moderator who has a good idea of what most people consider cruft. That way, only one person has to wade through the garbage, as opposed to all of us. As to whether this inhibits someone's freedom of speech, there is such a thing as disturbing the peace. Through moderation, a person who thinks he has an important point to make, WHO MIGHT OTHERWISE FLAME HIS POINT THROUGH will have an incentive to keep his posting in line with (at least) the minimum guidelines of the group. ( Hallelujah ;-) -- Eliot Lear [lear@net.bio.net]