The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
Dear Peggy Ann, I'm sorry if the guidelines about this list (at http://www.casi.org.uk/lists.html) have left you confused: if, after reading this message, you have suggestions about how the guidelines could be made clearer then do please let me know. As the current list manager, I should probably clarify a few things: In the normal state of affairs, members of the list can freely post to it without their messages requiring anyone's approval (i.e. the list is unmoderated). However, it is CASI's policy that it is our duty to list members to ensure that the list remains a useful resource to those campaigning against sanctions on Iraq. One aspect of this is to ensure that the messages sent to the list are, in the words of the Guidelines, "relevant to sanctions on Iraq, concise, inoffensive, polite, and should make a new point rather than just reiterating previous posts" (if you disagree that these things are necessary, then you are free to use other Iraq-related lists or newsgroups with lesser requirements). In extremely rare circumstances, when individuals consistently and repeatedly violate these basic requirements, we reserve the right to restrict their ability to post to the list without the list moderator's approval. I should emphasize that this is not a decision CASI would take at all lightly; in the 4 years the list has been running it has only been done in one or two cases. We also work hard to ensure that list members' time is not wasted by receiving junk mail or viruses through the list; this is the reason that those *not* on the list cannot send messages to it without the moderator's approval (if we didn't have this policy, there would typically be several junk mail messages a day distributed on the list). In exceptional circumstances when there is a suspected technical problem or if a whole burst of inappropriate messages (according to the criteria above) were being sent to the list, then we might temporarily move the list into a mode whereby all messages did require the moderator's approval. This is not the usual state of affairs. So to summarise on the "Big Brother" issue, there is a "Big Brother" for the list only in the sense of one who is dedicated to keeping the list a productive place for busy, serious people to discuss sanctions on Iraq. This is done by trying to maintain a healthy, respectful atmosphere and ensuring that members to not have to wade piles of junk mail, messages about other topics, and insults to find the useful information. We have no monopoly on email lists, so if you don't like this policy you can always use a different list, or create your own. You also raise the point of the "UK focus" - this is once again nothing more sinister than trying to make the list a productive 'place' to be. There are countless messages which would be useful to anti-sanctions campaigners in the US, for example, which would not be useful to campaigners in the UK. Being based in the UK (and since there is no shortage of US anti-sanctions email lists), we prefer the list not to be used for messages which are irrelevant to a mainly UK audience. This is not to say those outside the UK are not welcome on the list - just that they should accept that it is not necessarily the place for their local campaigning messages. Nor does it imply any kind of bitterness towards the American people, as you seem to suggest. And it certainly doesn't suggest that we think the US government is exclusively to blame -- on the contrary, CASI campaigns in the UK because we think the UK government's policy on Iraq is wrong. I hope this clarifies a few things, Best wishes, Seb Wills CASI lists manager On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, margaret paoloni wrote: > I must say I am a little confused how this list posting works. When I > read the guidelines I realized the rules involved a particular UK > focus and also that the posts are screened and then put on the > computer by the person in charge of the posts. Correct me if I am > wrong about all this. I must say that if that is the process then , is > it not once again Big Brother knowing what's good for your > consumption. Big brother does not always have to be the government or > some big corporation. I also saw that the US has it's own posts.I feel > that this is some of the problem with organizing against the forces > that wish to have the world under " a new world order." And this "New > World Order" is not most of the American people. It is one percent of > the Populaton in America. One percent of the population in the UK. It > is one percent of the population in every country that signs on to " > this new world order. " I'm sure Tony Blair does not have to pinch > pennies. We see it as one government against another government. > America is the big bad guy in the world. When I have traveled I have > more often felt contempt from Europeans more so than from any other > nationality on the planet. I think there is a fair share of propaganda > being fed to those of you in the UK. What I am trying to say, and > maybe not saying it well, I apologize for that, is I feel the monster > is closer to home to us than we might feel comfortable admitting. I > don't deny that the american government is the largest terrorist > nation on the planet and I am very critical of this government. But I > never say My government or "we" bombed because it is not my or we for > me. It is they. THose who wish to rule the world for their profits and > they are operating on all continents just using the american taxpayer, > resouces as it's suckers. The quality of life in Europe is far > superior to the US.The poverty that you see in some 3rd world > countries you also see here in some aspects of the US. Also I must say > if that these emails are screened before they are posted I see that as > just another arm > of forces trying to control. Granted they may be kinder forces but why does anyone know what is >in the best interest for others to hear or read. It's what leads to greater forces doing the same >thing and finding some reason to justify it. > Sincerely, Peggy Ann > > _______________________________________________ > Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. > To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss > To contact the list manager, email email@example.com > All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk > _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email firstname.lastname@example.org All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk