Re: Consideration vs. Censorship

[Shaun Mullen <smullen@philly.infi.net>]

Steven Buchholz wrote:
> 
> > Finally, any suggestion that our ongoing dialogue, yet alone any other
> > on the 'Net, should be determined according to certain Politically
> > Correct rules of engagement (notice that I did not say censorship), is
> > far more offensive than the endless nattering over NASCAR to which we've
> > been subjected in recent days.
> >
> The quattro list is not a moderated list.  It turns out that posting is not
> limited to those who $ub$cr!be [almost forgot!] to the list.  Anyone with
> the appropriate e-mail service can post anything that they want to the quattro
> list ... from anywhere around the world.
> 
> IMHO, one of the reasons that the quattro list is so active is that fact that
> it tends to have a pretty high signal to noise ratio.  I believe that we need
> to do whatever we can to preserve this, otherwise it is worth no more than
> an AOL chat room.  From time to time events of petty bickering occur to cause
> a reduction in this signal to noise ratio, and given the fact that the list is
> unmoderated, it takes notices by members of the list that are being bothered
> to ask for a return to reason.  When I feel it to be necessary, I usually
> express my concerns to people using direct e-mail.
> 
> My personal opinion is that I don't have much issue with the occasional
> NASCAR/Mopar/Bill Gates Ferrari/whatever posts, but when I check my
> messages and find that nearly half the messages in the box convey no useful
> information at all, not even about NASCAR then I've got a problem.  A couple
> of interesting notes from my perspective ... a post about some non-Audi topic
> may bother me a little, but a post about something non-Audi related that in-
> cludes some kind of disclaimer about not wanting to anger the censors usually
> evokes more of a negative reaction ... an Audi related post that was really
> directed toward a single person and should have been sent as a direct e-mail
> bothers me more than most non-Audi posts.  I personally do not consider this
> censorship, more a request for sensitivity and consideration for the hundreds
> of people that are having to deal with each post that is made to the list.
> IMO "Political Correctness" (R) has nothing to do with it ... if it did I
> wouldn't be here.  On the other side, I have learned of other q-list members
> with which I have other common non-Audi related interests, which we can
> carry on off-line, so a strict requirement of having some Audi relationship
> to all posts is not necessarily the best way to go either.
> 
> I do know of individuals that have been long time q-list members that have
> left because they feel the list has insufficient value to them.  Of course,
> this is their own decision ... but it can also be a loss to the q-list and
> its members.
> 
> My personal modus operandi is that before I include <quattro@coimbra.ans.net>
> in the delivery list for any message I ask myself if there will be more than
> one or two people on the list that may get some value from it.  If the answer
> is no then I'll send a direct e-mail message.  Of course this is my own de-
> cision, which is not guarantted to be the correct one :-).  I exhort all
> members of the list that consideration, not censorship, be the guide.
> 
> Thanks, and apologies for the lack of Audi content ...
> Steve Buchholz
> s_buchho@kla.com
> San Jose, CA (USA)

Well said.  I, for one, appreciate your thoughtfulness.