On Wed, 29 Jan 1997, Sol Lederman wrote:

> When Peter banished Bob and the others from the list at first I was upset.
> I didn't, and still don't, agree with Peter's action coming from a very
> volatile emotional space. I wasn't even sure that banishment was a good
> idea, being a believer in freedom of speech. However, I noticed after
> the banishment that the group immediately lightened up TREMENDOUSLY.
> I've changed my mind.

As moderator Peter has to make judgement calls about what is acceptable
and what isn't.  In my experience this was not easy to do at all.  Here
Peter clearly stated his reasons for his actions and gave everyone
involved ample warning and opportunities to respond.

> It will be interesting to see how the new raw group, that a couple of the
> banished people post to, evolves. I'm subscribed to both and I'm curious
> to compare tones of the two groups in a month or two.

Like we're not getting enough mail from this list ;-)  I have 173 messages
in my mailbox here.

> Democracy is not always a good idea.

In my experience on the internet unmoderated groups don't do well.  But if
anyone is unhappy with the moderator's limits they can start a different
group with different standards.

Michael