Re: Scientology causes seizure of FACTNet system [cr-95/8/25]


Sender: LECLERC YVES <•••@••.•••>


I don't want to bore anyone by reposting that long exchange of yours, but
here are two short reactions, hoping the context remains clear:

1. Whatever Vigdor thinks, cyber-rights is not only for Americans, I
hope. Richard, Arun and I, from our respective continents, certainly
take strong exception to this view.

2. I may not concur with your opinions -- I sometimes dissent quite
violently, in fact -- but I have yet to see that you "distort" willingly
the sense of posted messages. We all must accept differences of opinion,
they are what brings about the greatest evolution in our thinking... and
with all the experts lurking around ready to pounce, even occasional
errors of fact should be amiably taken for granted: we all make'em, and we
all stand corrected at times, Vigdor included.

In fact, the greatest danger to the list is in the unwitting bias his
recent post betrays: America is the only place where the 'Net must be
discussed, and everyone must always be perfectly correct. Humanity,
Vigdor, is a pretty sloppy species, and most of it is outside your
geographical bailiwick -- try to live with it nevertheless. 8-)

Yves Leclerc          Dead-End Democracy? or open-ended government...
Montreal, Quebec


Sender: •••@••.••• (Craig A. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Scientology causes seizure of FACTNet system [cr-95/8/25]

Vigdor wrote on 3 September:

>  I profess no sympathy for the Church of Scientology and its religious
>and legal claims in the present controversy.  I do wish to urge that this
>forum be maintained as a viable place for free and fair discussion of
>controversial issues of importance to the Net bearing upon the civil
>rights of Americans.  This cannot be achieved with a moderator who sees
>his role as one of supervising advocate.

Well, I think since both the COS press release and the FACTnet document were
posted that Andy's doing a fairly good job of representing both viewpoints.
Vigdor, by all means, if you have some enlightening information for us on
the benign nature of the cult's actions, please post it.

>There is certainly a place for
>advocacy on the Net, but clearly this cannot be the governing direction of
>a moderator, whose role cannot extend to any substantive control over the
>dialogue.  Oram should either shape up or step down.

I see nothing wrong with a moderator expressing viewpoints from time to
time, especially on issues that pertain so directly to cyber rights, and the
First and Fourth Amendments.

I view this attack on the moderator as absurdly reckless and plainly false.

Let's get on with a constructive dialogue, shall we?


 Posted by --  Andrew Oram  --  •••@••.••• --  Cambridge, Mass., USA
                 Moderator:  CYBER-RIGHTS (CPSR)

    World Wide Web:

You are encouraged to forward and cross-post messages and online materials,
pursuant to any contained copyright & redistribution restrictions.