Re: kicking out robt. johnson

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Walter Carroll: "Robert Johnson and his interlocutors"
• Previous message: Jack Ray: "RJ"

On Sun, 12 Mar 1995, Marsha Quinlan wrote:

> Fellow anthro-Lers, > Ken Jacobs asks if "we are all so time constrained
that we would > 'squash' one person's voice, whatever the opinion thereof
rather > that 'squash' the delete key." Unfortunately, yes. Some of us >
are indeed so time constrained. If the opinions had been professionally >
presented the issue would have been different. Thank you Hugh. Marsha >


This is all too flimsy and undemocratic kangroo-court for me. I have yet
to hear a clearly-enunciated principle, which we all agree to be judged by
ourselves, why an individual should be kicked off the list. Masha's
message makes no attempt to explain why using the delete key, as suggested
by Ken Jacobs, when the offending name come on screen is not an adequate
method. Clearly then, the people who are trying to kick Johnson off not
only do not want to read his messages themselves, they want to prevent the
rest of us from doing so. I suppose I should be grateful for their
protective attitude to the rest of us, but please, mother, I would rather
push the delete key myself.

Come one, now! This 'solution' of censorship is out of any possible
relationship to any puported 'crime', and without any relation to specific
enunciated standards that have been violated. Lets discuss standards for
behaviour first, then, if these stardards are violated, point to the
specific agreed-upon standard which has been violated.

I really cannot believe I need to remind people on this net that
communication freedom means, among other things, tolorance, particularly
when avoidence of the 'problem' is so simple and painless. Lighten up a
bit. I find the main problem with the Robert Johnson phenomenon is that
most of the people who choose to reply to his postings appear to have
absolutly no interest in a dialogue with him. (He is not alone here - a
number of other supremely boring threads in the last little while have
have this dialogue of the deaf format). That being the case, how about
those people who are merely incensed by his posts exercising a little
self-censorship?

Adrian Tanner

• Next message: Walter Carroll: "Robert Johnson and his interlocutors"
• Previous message: Jack Ray: "RJ"