Today has been busy -- I have received no less than four messages defending
the "filtering" of Mr. Johnson. All (or most) want to return to the theme of
this list. In spite of this, all continue to justify the "filtering" of Mr.
Johnson using the same reasoning discussed several times before. It is as
though some believe that if it is said often enough, I (and these "others"
which keep being referred to) will suddenly see the light, have a Pauline
conversion, and jump on the bandwagon of intolerance. I don't, however, think
that is likely.
 
James Burton makes the point which has come out before that these "off-topic"
discussions drive people away. This may be, and as I have said before, for
this I am sorry. Nevertheless, the issues raised here are, or should be, of
tremendous importance to the archaeological community. They deserve wide, and
intense, discussion. I realize some may have little patience for this. While
I attempt to respect this lack of patience, I must admit that I don't
understand it. Again, and again, I have questioned the need for authoritative
intervention when it is so easy to simply delete that which we don't want to
deal with -- for whatever reason (i.e., we don't like the person, we don't
like his/her lack of eitquette, we don't like the message, we don't like
being off topic, whatever).
 
James also believes that Mr. Johnson was "filtered" not because of his views,
but because of his behavior. I will not presume to second guess the motives,
or even quibble. My concerns are substantively the same, either way.  There
is an easier means of dealing with Mr. Johnson which helps to guarantee
indivudual freedoms and promote free exchange among those interested.
 
James goes on to mention that he is sadded by the ruin of good lists. I, too,
share this feeling. And, had everyone on HISTARCH simply ignored Mr. Johnson,
he would likely have gone away of his own accord. Glancing back through the
archives will reveal that I have never defended Mr. Johnson's views, or
alternatively, gotten into a debate with him. I simply skimmed his messages
and deleted. I did the same to those who disagreed with him.  It is only with
his "filtering" that I find myself forced to question the wisdom and
appropriateness of this approach.
 
Mark Hall reposted his defence of "filtering" Mr. Johnson. He seems, and I
mean no disrespect, to defend "filtering" as a more convenient alternative
than using the delete function. While I suppose that using the delete
function does require some wrist action and perhaps expends 1 or 2 calories
of energy, I hardly find that an unreasonable trade-off to the authoritative
"filtering" of others and their views.
 
Mark also compares Mr. Johnson's actions to crying fire in a crowded movie
theater. I won't pursue the legal implications, but I am prepared to doubt
the appropriateness of the analogy. Creating chaos, fear, and widespread
panic, potentially leading to loss of life, is a far cry from Mr. Johnson's
actions. I suspect most of his detractors (myself included) would be
disinclined to give him that much credit. A more appropriate analogy might be
that Mr. Johnson was muttering an obscenity in a shopping mall. That behavior
is perhaps deserving of a sideways glance, perhaps even general derision.
But, it cannot be reasonally equated with creating panic.
 
Linda Derry notes that these messages are costing her ten cents each. I have
previously noted that I, too, must pay for my service. On the other hand, I
will not begrudge Mr. Johnson his say over the cost of his message. I view
this as a cost of freedom -- and one that I am happy to pay. The alternative,
I fear, is far more costly.
 
Finally, while Donald Morgan's post has been forwarded to the entire list by
another colleague, his note to me seemed private and I have sent him my
thanks, and response for his consideration, by private e-mail.
 
Now, I have a "modest proposal." I have presented my case. Others have
presented a refutation. And I have been allowed to rebut. Everyone seems to
want to go on to archaeology, but isn't willing to sit back and simply think
about the long-range implications of "filtering" Mr. Johnson. Well, I am
willing for this to be my last post on the topic -- with the agreement that
no one else posts either. If someone has a comment or a different arguement,
I will happily exchange views directly. Fair enough?
 
Best wishes,
 
Mike Trinkley
Chicora Foundation, Inc.
PO Box 8664
Columbia, SC 29202-8664
803/787-6910
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
 
 
 
 
 
All make very similar points; and points which have been discussed several
times previously. All (or at least most) also want to return to the theme of
this list.