censoring negative comments?

[jester]

Give it a break.
Peter has a right to air his comments, opinions, suspicions, accusastions,
whatever you decide to call them.  Jules used this list as source material
for his book.  Furthermore, returning to this list and telling us all about
it has sparked more controversy than it deserves -- thus assuring press
coverage and free marketing to some degree, as well as review where it might
not have been reviewed.  Furthermore, Jules is a frequent poster to this
list who is not quiet about HIS opinions, comments, etc... but extremely
vocal and extremely personal in his method (flames and responses to flames
make up a majority of the posts -- fine, I find many of them amusing and
witty, very entertaining).  Therefore, Jules opens himself (and his book) up
to this sort of thing, and that's perhaps as it should be.  He should also
come to his own defense.  What errupts from this sort of thing is DISCUSSION
-- sometimes heated, but nevertheless helpful.

Also, we have no censors on this list.  If YOU wish to censor Peter's (or
Jules') comments, please use your delete key.  

And another thing, since you're new to this list, it's probably a good thing
to sit back and read the posts for awhile (especially if you're going to
comment on a thread), get to know the people you're writing to (and about),
that way you won't be so clueless.

(oh, I tried sending this to "e" personally, but it kept bouncing... I
wonder why ;-)

Peace,
JJ "Jester"

At 10:16 AM 05/11/1997 -0400, e sommer wrote:
>Let me say, as a recently added lurker on this list, who
>knows not what the fuck the ruckus is about, that i am
>saddened this Sunday morn to read Mr. Siegel´s evenhanded
>rebuttal to somebody who refers to everybody else as 
>"Somebody". 
<snip>
>Now i wdnt normally burden an overactive list with
>my nubile cluelessness, but was saddened (did i say that already?)
>to see Mr. Siegel have to rise to his own defence.