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]