I suppose Anita's "(and others)" in her salutation was intended to make me
feel less lonely and I do appreciate that. As I have explained before, I have
no expectation of changing much. I do, however, have the expectation that I
will force at least a few people to confront this issue a little more
honestly than they might otherwise. I don't consider that "beating a dead
horse," although I certainly understand how others may feel this way. While I
can't imagine disecting my profession from my ethical views, I suppose that
some make clearer distinctions.
 
Regardless, Anita's post raises some new, and interesting, issues. She
explains that Mr. Johnson was "filtered" not because of his attitude or
views, but because he broke "Net rules," "refused to stay on topic," and
"refused to moderate." I find it a little difficult to understand the
difference, but I certainly grant that this may be a matter of perception.
 
Even this explanation, however, should be worrisome. I have pulled the
response I received to subscribing to HISTARCH looking for some indication of
"Net rules," or "staying on topic," or "need to moderate," and can find no
real information. I have explored (albeit quickly) The Internet Navigator by
Gilster and The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Internet (which I am sure some
will suggest is appropriate for me). And I can find no real "rules." I do
note that many perceive of the net as being "the last frontier" where
unbridled individualism is possible.
 
Perhaps it is ungentlemanly of Mr. Johnson to post mail sent to him without
requesting the permission of the author, but that seems to be a personal
issue of bad behavior. Perhaps it is even a legal offense -- I don't know.
But, I believe there are other venues for addressing this and that
"filtering" an individual is inappropriate.
 
Perhaps Mr. Johnson drifted off topic. But that is why, I suppose, God
created delete buttons. And perhaps Mr. Johnson was difficult to "moderate."
This may mean that he is crazy, or brillent, or egostic, or a crusader, or
any number of other possibilities. But again, that is why there is a delete
button.
 
I am truly sorry if Anita feels that I am directing this at her personally.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I have worked very hard in my
efforts to keep my concerns at a philosophical, not personal, level. I am
sure that it is "a hell of a lot work" keeping the list going. I can also
imagine that some, perhaps many, want a "salon atmosphere."
 
But, step away and look at this from a distance. Mr. Johnson just didn't
conform. He didn't play by "our" rules. He didn't know when to shut-up. He
wasn't "socially acceptable." He didn't fit into our "salon atmosphere." He
didn't know his place. He didn't behave as he was "supposed to." He was
tiresome. He annoyed the wrong people. And so, he was "filtered."
 
Sounds like a lot of ugly history, doesn't it?
 
Now, as I said, I'm not intending this to be any sort of personal attack. I
think that it is very easy to slip into this mind frame and that too often it
happens without even any conscious realization. I've lived in a part of the
country where this is all too common. But, as I have said before, when it
does happen it places all of us at risk.
 
Several of the recent posts have focused on the solidarity of the community
-- that "everyone" was annoyed by Mr. Johnson or that "everyone" supports
"filtering." This may, or may not, be true. But I hasten to add that it is
also immaterial to the philosphical and ethical issues involved. What is
"right" or "wrong" comes from a higher source than either a majority vote or
mob rule. We should be very careful to avoid equating "might" with "right."
 
Best wishes,
 
Mike Trinkley
Chicora Foundation, Inc.
PO Box 8664
Columbia, SC  29202-8664
803/787-6910
E-mail: [log in to unmask]