AA <sirronnalaREMOVE@yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:fO-
dnZL3JJIK2E_VnZ2dnUVZ_qDinZ2d@netspace.net.au:
> So, tell me, are you happy with most of the bullshit that gets posted
> here when an accident occurs??
No, I'm not, but I do recognise the poster's right to post and
that I have no right to limit what they post. In my view, the
fundamental problem with web-based forums is that someone invariably
'owns' them, and that someone invariably appoints moderators. Said
Moderators invariably exert control, effecting a net result that
priviliges the views of the 'owner' at the expense of conflicting
views. Bachrach and Baratz' (1963) second dimension of power: exert
power by limiting the issues that make it to the table.
I take comfort in the presense of the likes of Stealth, pretzel
and JGG. That they are allowed to air their views, no matter how
wacky we might consider them to be, is evidence that the forum is
free and open and that a proper mix of views are making it to the
discussion unhindered. As soon as the crazies are suppressed, one
must begin to wonder what else is being expurgated. It is OK,
within the usual bounds of debate, to censure. It is never OK to
censor. Web based forums invariably feature a degree of censorship,
and so web based forums are never OK.
<insert well-known Voltaire quote here>
GB
Works cited:
Bachrach, P & Baratz, MS, 1963, “Decisions and Nondecisions: An
Analytical Framework.” The American Political Science Review,
vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 632-642.

Signature
My friend Steve is an atheist. He has a bumper sticker that reads "Honk
if you love Jesus". When someone honks, he gives them the finger.