[extropy-chat] META: "Killthread": Is it censorship or sensible?

[Thomas]

Natasha Vita-More wrote:

> [...] because we share this list as a venue to discuss and challenge 
> ideas [...]

Yes.

> From: Eugen Leitl
>
>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 01:53:25PM +1000, Brett Paatsch wrote:
>> >John Grigg wrote:
>> >
>> > Attempting to impeach the current president is not a
>realistic plan 
>> >
>> > Why would you think that? 
>>
>> Folks, killthread. This is completely off-topic for the list.
>
Not completely off-topic since many of Bush's efforts have worked 
against the extropian, especially funding war at the expense of medical 
and technological progress.  

>Brett responded:
>
. . . rather emotionally, offering nothing positive towards reinstating 
the thread.  Moderation seems appropriate when we're confronted with 
such venomous content, but the thread itself needs no censorship.  It 
had already nearly died.  Still, the pattern of Brett's recent posts 
seemed to call for moderation at some point.  I typed a response to his 
attack on Max, but decided not to post it for fear of adding fuel to a 
disturbance.  

> [...] Whether or not Brett's thread is on topic for this list is one 
> issue at stake.  [...] but the way in which it is presented to the 
> list, or the language used or implications of the meaning of the posts 
> can cause a moderator to request that the thread be put to rest.

Yes, I got the impression Eugen called for killthread as a tactful way 
of moderating emotionalism.  

> [...]  Instead of approaching the topic from a constructive inclusive 
> manner, you made assumptions and accusations.  This never sits well 
> with list members.

Not when it gets "un fun."

> [...] what do other list members think of this thread?

We can't resurrect it if it never dies.  If we do, lets hope it has a 
new identity.  : )

> Lastly, I do think this is a topic that warrants objective examination 
> and search for resolution.  I invite you to think about this.

Sure.  -- Thomas