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 h26LjkP29028; Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:45:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 16:45:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <00d001c2e442$87eb1460$95255544@ewndsr01.nj.comcast.net> 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: Ujwala Samant <usamant@comcast.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-esl@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-ESL:8765] Re: Censorship? X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 Status: O Content-Length: 635 Lines: 18 Sylvan, I don't disagree with the fact that netiquette applies to everyone. But I also think that in this case, the "moderation" was not done in a timely manner. In one sense, we look for our moderators to do so when the first salvo is fired, not after the castle has been stormed! I know that this sounds like blaming the moderators. That isn't what I'm trying to do. I think being an active participant on a public listserv requires professional behaviour from everyone, participants and moderators. I think it is also up to us as professionals and colleagues to maintain a certain decorum when posting. regards Ujwala Samant
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:15:49 EST