Return-Path: <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id h25MBwP26580; Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:11:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:11:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0303052353490.4395-100000@hamlin.cc.boun.edu.tr> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: Meral Kara <karamera@boun.edu.tr> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ESL:8740] RE: NIFL's Policy X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Status: O Content-Length: 1204 Lines: 25 I read almost all of the posts that caused this problem that in the end a valued member, in my opinion, has been removed from the list. However, I feel the need to remind everybody and the list moderators who showed him the door that this was a discussion which by definition requires at least two parties and if you care to read the messages from the archive that the party you disposed of was the one who replied kindly to many of the attacks by the other party. Then I admit he went off the limits. But I should ask: Is it OK to insult someone and provoke them overtly and get away with it when they are kicked out of the list because they replied having been agitated? On Tue, 4 Mar 2003 WonJst@netscape.net wrote: > The attacks came from two individuals, not the person who was removed. Why is the list still being censored anyway? You don't moderate, but you censor? Sounds fairly repressive to me. > > SJW > > __________________________________________________________________ > The NEW Netscape 7.0 browser is now available. Upgrade now! http://channels.netscape.com/ns/browsers/download.jsp > > Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:15:47 EST