[Reader-list] On critical integrity of the list

philip pocock Philip.Pocock at t-online.de
Tue Sep 18 22:25:11 IST 2001

please specify. moderation is not an excuse to castigate and trivialize
content with terms like 'pick on' or 'upset'. at no time did i flame,
and at times there were some horrendously callous remarks, which you
have not yet addressed?

Monica Narula wrote:

> Dear Readers,
> We have received complaints from several people on the list about
> what seems to be a tendency on Philip Pocock's part to pick on
> individuals for personal attack.
> We are all distressed by the events of the last week, and the anger,
> sorrow and foreboding that has been expressed by members of the list
> is symptomatic of that. It is unfortunate that this is becoming an
> occasion for some of us
> to hang out our personal peeves and impose ourselves on to the list
> at large. It is important to be categorical in pointing out different
> trends in a discussion, but personalised dismissal only shuts
> discussion down.
> I think that it would be best to take the level of discussion on to a
> deeper level than simply accusing each other of being intolerant
> (especially in the name of tolerance and harmony).
> We have noted, in particular, a tendency on Philip's part to cast
> aspersions on the characters or sensibilities of fellow list members.
> If he (or anyone) has a disagreement with a position, then he/she has
> every right to state that disagreement, but statements that say
> "outdated" or "psychopathic" do nothing to raise the standard of
> debate on the list, nor  posting material that has been already
> posted on to the list...
> Let us not allow this flurry of postings to degenerate into a flame
> war that satisfies none of the purposes of the list. We have kept
> this list un-moderated, and this means that we all have a
> responsibility to ensure that disagreement does not become
> disagreeable. It is all our responsibility to keep the critical
> integrity of the list alive.
> As list administrator, I feel I have the responsibility  to make the
> displeasure of many (which has also been communicated to me) known to
> Philip. I would also urge others on the list not to be provoked by
> this to counter flame. That servers no purpose either, and it clearly
> feeds the problem.
> I think that everyone who has been upset by Philip's postings should
> realise that his views are his alone, and that by the sheer volume of
> postings he sometimes makes, they do not represent in anyway what
> people are thinking and
> feeling on this list.
> I would also urge the many silent voices to speak up, perhaps there
> are other perspectives, even news or ideas of other things that are
> not getting heard in the din of the debris of the events of last
> week. Of course we will continue to discuss what we are thinking and
> feeling about what is going on in the world as a result of the events
> of September 11, but let us do so as with sanity and without flaming
> each other.
> Thankyou for all your attention
> Monica Narula
> List Administrator
> --
> Monica Narula
> Sarai:The New Media Initiative
> 29 Rajpur Road, Delhi 110 054
> www.sarai.net
> _______________________________________________
> Reader-list mailing list
> Reader-list at sarai.net
> http://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list

More information about the reader-list mailing list