[ The following text is in the "utf-8" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
The truth is on both sides. I did believe Stevan had not posted my
message because it showed up late in my in-box. At the same time, I
also objected to Stevan's summary because it was not faithful at all
to my own words. The task of summarizing is tricky and the phrase "as
[the moderator] understands it" is not sufficient. Stevan should
refrain from summarizing, especially when he summarizes something he
does not agree with. Even an achievangelical being remains human and
"errare humanum est" to use Stevan's apparently favourite language.
I agree with Stevan that the issue of censorship should be completely
separated from the question of the potential dual role
moderator/contributor. Censorship is no longer an issue with me. This
said, I believe a moderator should, like the chair of a meeting,
remain in the background, above the discussions, and not intervene
except in extreme cases (as when a chair casts a vote in tied
situations). Obviously, Stevan does not subscribe to this notion.
But in full fairness, Stevan, in his dual role, has constantly
striven to act in the right way. Personally, I have no objection to
Stevan's role as moderator, only reservations. And these reservations
do not aim at Stevan, but at the duality of the role he occupies.
Jean-Claude Guédon
Le vendredi 03 octobre 2008 à 07:04 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 3:52 AM, Andy Powell <andy.powell_at_eduserv.org.uk> wrote:
> To be fair, I think Jean-Claude is primarily accusing you (Stevan)
> of summarising his arguments back to the list incorrectly rather
> than censorship per se,
No, actually I think he thought I had not posted his posting.
I think every poster, whether moderator or not, has the right to
summarize to postings of other posters, as he understands them, and to
criticize them as he sees fit (as long as the criticism is not ad
hominem, defamatory. libelous, or off-topic).
> then noting that having the role of both moderator and prime
> activist doesn't always sit comfortably.
As moderator all I do is keep the list on-topic, and filter out
flaming and spamming.
As poster, I do what everyone else on the list does: I express my own
views to the best of my ability and knowledge.
In this discussion, please let us separate the question of whether I
have, as moderator, suppressed relevant postings, from the question of
whether there is some sort of incompatibility between being moderator
and poster.
> On the few occassions that I posted to this list, I have tended
> to do so in response to (and sometimes in disagreement with)
> a post by Stevan and if I'm honest, I do find it odd that my post
> then has to wait for moderation by the person I'm arguing with.
Have any of your postings failed to appear?
> All of which leads to a very simple question... does this list
> actually need moderation?
Unless you want to see the dozens of spams that appear in my gmail box
every day, you better keep this a moderated list.
But I repeat, if there is a plurality opposed to my moderation, I am
happy to hand over to someone else.
Stevan Harnad
Jean-Claude Guédon
Université de Montréal
Received on Fri Oct 03 2008 - 17:55:53 BST