To: John VanPelt 
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: OR
X-Status:   



On Mon, 10 Oct 1994, John VanPelt wrote:

> Rex wrote:
> 
> > Selecting well articulated dialogues.... [from alt.* discussion groups, 
> etc.]....
> 
> In substance I think I agree with your point. It is nettlesome to try to 
> codify the perceived freedoms of the digital info stream; it's clear 
> inequities of voice and opportunity exist, like the ones you cite...
> 
> But who will do the 'selecting,' above? 

There are two types of dialogue a moderator generally tries to filter out.
 One is the "jane you ignorant slut" type postings that attack the poster.
On some groups it is fun, like reading the National Inquirer, on most
moderated groups, the posting is rejected.  The poster can repost a reply
that addresses the topic, or be silent.

The other form of posting is the "we've heard it 200 times now" postings. 
Discussions on abortions that say little more than "Killing babies is
wrong because it is murder", along with the well known Bible references
doesn't contribute anything new to the conversation.  Others are
frequently asked questions.  When someone asks an FAQ, you sent him the
stock FAQ reply (more than he ever wanted to know).  The next posting is
usually polite, happy, and interesting.
 
> And in a way, one asks, who speaks for the inarticulate...?
The internet is famous for it's diversity.  There are plenty of people who
can articulate interesting copy for both sides of an issue.

> To take this farther would probably move it off this group......
I replied to you directly.


> John Van Pelt
> jvanpelt@world.std.com
>  



From rexb Thu Oct 27 11:16:07 1994