[Web4lib] Subscriber Removal Clarification

[James Capobianco]

Joshua Ferraro wrote:
>
>First off, the fact that you're being questioned should alert you that 
>a significant portion of us on this list feel that the action taken was

>unfair.
>  
Chad wrote:
>Let the moderators do their job and if you don't agree with their
policies and/or the enforcement of those policies, you >can easily start
another list and make your own rules. 

I believe what Joshua was pointing out is that other people also clearly
broke those policies by their posts and yet did not receive some kind of
warning about it. I tend to agree with him on this, and I am sure others
do as well. There definitely were inflammatory statements on the other
side that led to where it ended up.

I admit that Chuck uses some strong language and statements, and
certainly is not in the right. But that still doesn't change Joshua's
points. (Read the archive if you don't believe him)

>Let the moderators do their job and if you don't agree with their
policies and/or the enforcement of those policies, you >can easily start
another list and make your own rules.
	Unfortunately, this has the distinct ring of "love it or leave
it," (at least to me) which helps no one and only makes those who would
really like to grapple with real issues feel like there is no use trying
to figure out any important questions. It's like saying "Who cares what
we think about whether the Patriot Act provisions will be renewed; let's
not talk about it; just let the President and the senators do their
jobs." It's like saying "let those people who don't agree with me go off
somewhere else."

I don't want to write much more about this, since I think we all would
like to actually talk about the issues, not talk about how we will talk
about the issues. But sometimes, you just have to.

James