Theos-Talk Archives (June 2000 Message tt00208)

Bart:

You've been posting on several lists, and perhaps didn't notice that
you wrote this message to theos-talk, whereas you're referring to the
theos-l list, which John Mead started. 

Both theos-l and theos-talk are unmoderated. Messages go out when
someone posts them. Moderated mailing lists have their place too,
because materials that are offensive, off-topic, or excessively
long can be filtered out. The problem, though, with moderated lists,
is that the process of moderation stifles creative self-expression
and takes away the spontaneous nature of the discussions. This can
be both good and bad -- certainly different than unmoderated lists.

Some moderated lists have languished, like the ts-l list, which
may have a very few digests going out in a good month, even though
the number of subscribers may be more that those on theos-talk or
theos-l. Other moderated lists like the two on Blavatsky Net have
seemed to do fine, because of the high exposure the site gives to
the list and the fact that there are so many subscribers that the
percentage that have the patience for moderated lists is enough to
sustain on-going discussions. The problem with moderated lists,
though, is that whenever someone's postings are rejected by the
moderator, and they're told that their postings are unsuitable, there's
a tendency for one to feel slighted, and for one to see unfair
censorship even when such is not intended.

Frank's reaction to having some of his messages rejected by
Blavatsky Net, and his frustration is understandable. He may
feel a bit stronger about having some of his postings censored
than many of us might, because of what he's seeing happen in 
his home country, Germany. There is an initial effort there, by
the government, to consider a ban on the sale of certain theosophical books,
like THE SECRET DOCTRINE, because of certain remarks that are
considered racist. It has also been hinted that perhaps the book
would be allowed to be sold, with offending passages blacked out.
One bookstore has been approached regarding this matter, but it
may be a trial case, to see what can be done, before a more
generalized ban/censorship might be approached. Theosophical groups 
in the country have not shown much interest in trying to help out 
the situation. 

The above is about all I know of the situation. I've seen an
email or two, and just read an article about the situation in
the latest issue of FOHAT MAGAZINE. 

If I had personal exposure to real efforts underway to censor
Theosophy, I'd certainly be extra sensitive to what might feel
like censorship by moderated mailing lists.

-- Eldon

At 09:25 PM 6/26/00 -0400, you wrote:
>        For better or worse (and, largely, better) John Meade, the list
>"owner", does not moderate. This group goes where it may, and, most of
>the time, it works, and when it doesn't, the duration is short.
>
>        Bart Lidofsky
>
>lynn marini wrote:
>> 
>> To whom it may concern, ie moderator
>> Thank you for your response to Frank R which I hope nipped in the bud,
>> what  I perceived to be the seeds of discord.  As a new person to this
>> site & an "inquiring mind" I do not find postings of that nature to be
>> very helpful.  Albeit there is that 1st Amendment right.
>> I do not really care to know about the "argument" but I would appreciate
>> an explantion or definition of "ULT"
>> thank you.


-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.