 |
 |
I agree. One always has the option of ignoring and deleting. I always read the posts that get several responses -- they are at least amusing. And I learned from this list that there is such a beast as an "HIV/AIDS denialist", so that particular exchange has been an education for me. In addition, as Mandi points out, it's of interest to see what other issues the denialists take to heart...> Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:21:55 +0200> From: [log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Censored topics: Clarification requested> To: [log in to unmask]> > Having been involved in a number of fora on e-mail, I've realised that every> single one has one or two members who constantly bring up a particular> subject which arouses ire and frustration in other members. (With some,> indeed, I've wondered if that's the whole point, if they just enjoy the> effect.)> One lefty forum had a member who simply would not, ever, be persuaded that,> while men may indeed suffer abuse at the hands of women, statistics quite> clearly show that the major problem is man-on-woman abuse. No matter what> evidence anyone brought to the table, he would simply revert to his old> point of view. (Curiously, this man - who is an attorney - is one of the> names on the famous list of thousands of 'Aids dissenters'.)> In the end, the forum, by unspoken consensus, simply stopped responding to> his posts on this issue. What was the point, after all? And he just quietly> went away, confirming my view that he was getting his kicks out of our> response to him.> Now I would not suggest that this is the case here, but I did decide some> time ago that I would no longer engage in comment on this one issue. The> commenters haven't given any evidence that persaudes me, and quite plainly,> none of what any other members provide persuades them. So why bother? I'd so> much rather save my energies for debates that actually inform, engage and> interest me.> Mandi> ----- Original Message -----> From: "herb fox" <[log in to unmask]>> To: <[log in to unmask]>> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 1:09 PM> Subject: Re: Censored topics: Clarification requested> > > > In my judgment the discussion about censorship is off the underlying> > problem. What is the mission of this list serve? Were there a clear> > statement of what is the purpose, intended participants, and intended> > audience of the list serve, the criteria for acceptable and unacceptable> > posts would be a slam dunk.> > herb> >> > Mitchel Cohen wrote:> > > Censorship is always tricky business.> >> > __________ NOD32 3327 (20080805) Information __________> >> > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.> > http://www.eset.com> >> > _________________________________________________________________ Your PC, mobile phone, and online services work together like never before. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108587394/direct/01/