[Web4lib] Subscriber Removal Clarification

[JB Bryant]

My response to that (I don't plan on continuing this much longer
myself) is that the action under scrutiny right now is removing Chuck.
I think we need to discuss that on its own. If others should have been
removed as well, that needs to be treated as a separate discussion.

What others did does not affect the wrongness of what Chuck did. I
include provocation in that statement.

jb


-----Original Message-----
From: web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org
[mailto:web4lib-bounces at webjunction.org] On Behalf Of Joshua Ferraro
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 4:16 PM
To: web4lib at webjunction.org
Subject: Re: [Web4lib] Subscriber Removal Clarification

On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 02:57:29PM -0600, hutchens wrote:
> I've never posted to this list, but I read it every day, enjoy it,
and 
> find it enormously useful.  I would argue that there are just as many

> people who do think the action was not only fair, but necessary.  
So just for the record, you would argue that it's fair and necessary
for
Chuck to be singled out even though he wasn't the only one following
the list's posting policy and even though he was provoked?

> I'm a moderator on a personal interest forum and it's not an easy job
to keep 
> everyone happy.   I believe Mr. Tennant and the advisory board
handled 
> the situation professionally and am appreciative of their ongoing 
> volunteer work to maintain such a useful list.
I'm appreciated of their work too, I just happen to disagree with this
particular action.

Cheers,

Joshua
_______________________________________________
Web4lib mailing list
Web4lib at webjunction.org
http://lists.webjunction.org/web4lib/