Theos-Talk Archives (August 1997 Message tl00003)

Keith wrote:

>In regard to theos-l being less than doggie doo, I wish I had the orignal 
>post.  Who said this?  

I don't believe anyone said it until someone on this list
characterized some TS members' opinion of this list in that way.  

>Anyway, I don't doubt that many consider it doggie diarrehea, because it is 
>uncontroled and fecund, fertile, and growth promotoing unlike some lists >that are overcontrolled and sterile, and stifling like there "moderators".  >Never was a word more appropriate.    Take a guess?

I find it ironic that the same people whose politics advocates
government stopping people from being too free and successful so that
freeloaders can be encouraged are the ones who insist that their
discussions not be moderated.  Moderated discussions stick to the
topic more.  If one doesn't want to discuss any particular topic, why
would one subscribe to any particular list?  I joined this list
because I wanted to discuss Theosophy.  That it isn't moderated makes
that much more difficult.  The TS-L list probably has more discussion
of Theosophy on it than this one does, in about 10% of the volume.
Freedom must be limited, or it is non-existent.  It can never exist
purely, but only in connection with its opposite, like every other
pair of opposites.