Theos-Talk Archives (August 1997 Message tl00011)

At 02:18 AM 8/1/97 -0400, Tom Robertson wrote:
>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.
>

I think Tom has a point. However, volume of msgs don't bother me at all
since theos-xxxx is only *one* of the many lists I subscribe to and some of
the other lists have much higher traffic. I use the filter capabilities of
my mail reader to do most of the sorting and also I liberally use the delete
key.

One of the benefits of an unmoderated fast medium is the various pieces of
information that I have been able to learn about in 2 years what I did not
know about in 20 years. And also the speed of exchanges of msgs.

My 2 cents worth.

..............doss