The need to tidy up the list can hardly be called censorship.  All that is
asked is that subscribers follow a few simple and sensible rules when
placing their letters on the net.  I like to read most letters I receive so
as not to miss anything but I sometimes delete when a heading clearly has 
no relevance to me.. I find the followimg faults extremely irksome.  Many 
headings bear no resemblance to the subject matter.  Thus one cannot safely
delete based on headings alone.  Regularly we see "I agree" or "Me too" as
the sole subject matter followed by fifty lines of quotes which we had all
seen one or two days previously.  A pointless exercise requiring the
distribution of some 800 letters which are immediately deleted.  Then we
have numerous replies lazily put on the list when they are clearly destined
for one individual.  When replying to a letter it is usually enough to
quote one or two lines, a simple enough operation to select yet time and
time again the whole letter is quoted needlessly.  Then there is the
occasional letter whose lines go on and on across four or five screens,
making the reading extremely infuriating.  For me messages with a Part 2 as
a download usually end up as gibberish or,  often, a repeat of Part 1., so
I wonder why this is done.  Am I at fault in being unable to transcribe
these messages  or is it my computer?  
 I could go on but the above will do for now.   
Can it be called censorship asking writers to pull up their socks and show
a little forethought before they rush into print?
                                                [log in to unmask]