Theos-Talk Archives (August 2010 Message tt00152)

With respect, moderation is censorship, and it comes down to who gets to pin the 
tail on the donkey. That theosophists are so thin skinned that they need an 
arbitrator to intervene on what that arbitrator sees as fit or unfitting is not 
only a double standard but is an insult to the nature of truth, even if 
subjective. IMO it is deceptive and can lead to misinterpretation of that 
person's character. Who censors the censor?ÂÂThis is akin to Vatican policy, 
cover-ups, and secret pacts that kept their paedophiliac behaviour in the church 
closets and perpetuated the myth that the Church would, if questioned, 
exactÂtheÂfate of the damocles swordÂover the questioner, resulting 
inÂexcommunication at best, murder at worst.
>
>Cass
>Â
>
>From: Spirituality <mail@cJoJSHL3wbbi94E6BEy1SEj0dNUjrWjHGAxUVD-kg0EREivVIMXJFCjS5iJjzms6etc5w0AZF78W-OJgjejttg.yahoo.invalid>
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Wed, 11 August, 2010 7:46:31 PM
>Subject: theos-talk moderation on online forums
>
>Â 
>Hi all,
>
>Let's face it: unmoderated online forums are a fiction. They don't exist. First 
>of all there's spam. Then there's people who just can't seem to behave. No list 
>functioning for actual people can afford to be unmoderated. 
>
>
>I've seen some of Frank's recent mails - which aren't let through onto this list 
>- and they really do go too far. Sorry Frank, that's how I feel. 
>
>
>[I would not mention it publicly, but I guess we have to fight it all out - and 
>this is also why the theosophical ning has gone private: hashing it out in 
>public is not exactly good PR for the theosophical movement. Still, hashing out 
>we need to do. Avoiding disagreements in the name of brotherhood just doesn't 
>work. It only leads to blow ups later. The challenge is to disagree politely, 
>staying friendly. Not accusing each other of black magic and things like that.]
>
>So MKR: I agree with the choice to moderate Frank, however it would be better 
>not to pretend that this is an unmoderated list. I don't think there's an Adyar 
>conspiracy going on here, however I do feel that perhaps you're moderating 
>people who disagree with Radha a bit more vigorously than those who don't. Being 
>impartial is difficult. However, in your position it's something you do have to 
>try. 
>
>
>And for those worrying about it: I'm still reading along here occasionally. Just 
>as often as I have in the past. I've merely deleted the links TO this list from 
>my website. They'll go back when I think claims and facts are once again in 
>correspondence.
>
>Katinka
>
>--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Sampsa Kuukasjarvi" <sampsa.kuukasjarvi@...> 
>wrote:
>>
>> My answer to Daniel's question is: I think we have gotten some answers from 
>>MKR. That is good. Some suspicions against him were misunderstandings.
>> 
>> I wouldn't like to beat our new moderator and hard worker more (he has had hard 
>>times lately), but I have to, because he has so loud required transparency from 
>>the TS Sections.
>> 
>> What still worries me is that MKR acts like a politician, who is afraid to get 
>>caught from a lie. My impression is that he doesn't answer questions properly, 
>>but is beating around the bush. For instance: he has not said if he deleted 
>>those posts or not. What he says is that the messages are safe elsewhere and 
>>that it is possible for posters to delete their messages.
>> 
>> This is a matter of trust and principle. If he has made a mistake, I think he 
>>should admit it, and we would be happy. MKR's own advise to Tiger Woods on this 
>>list was that Tiger should have acknowledges his sins immediately, because the 
>>situation got worse due to silence. Isn't there a similar situation in here?
>> 
>> Besides, one problem is that at least Preethi and Frank have been censored here 
>>while MKR has all the time said that this list is unmoderated. If the reasons 
>>for censoring were that the messages were too personal, okay, but let us not 
>>talk about an unmoderated list then.
>> 
>> See:
>> 
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/53943
>> 
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/54478
>> 
>> Sampsa
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel" <danielhcaldwell@> wrote:
>> >
>> > The link below gives the most current view Katinka
>> > has of Theos-Talk:
>> > 
>> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/54524
>> > 
>> > My question is:
>> > 
>> > Have all those concerns NOW been answered and addressed and
>> > is Katinka reconsidering her view as expressed in the above post?
>> > 
>> > I bring this up not to put Katinka on the spot but since some of her views 
>>were also expressed by other Theos-Talk subscribers, I am thinking outloud:
>> > 
>> > Have all the concerns and questions as given in her posting been adequately 
>>answered and addressed?
>> > 
>> > Daniel
>> >
>>
>
>
>


      

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]