Far as I know, the *list* echoed your message - you're talking about
censorship of the ARCHIVE, not the list - Infosite may've censored your
message;  The PICList admins have little say over Infosite's behavior,
AFAIK.  Bet it's still in my inbox here.

  Mark

Peter van Hoof wrote:
>
> Ok , then let's call the beastie by it's real name
> My message was censored.
>
> I think my reply was short, to the point, and reasonably courteous and for
> the ones interested I can send it to you.
>
> The original I replied to is archived on
> http://www.infosite.com/%7Ejkeyzer/piclist/1999/Aug/2051.html
> You will find a link to my reply , but not find the reply itself, nor any
> other reply's to this very unacceptable post (to 92.4 percent of readers
> anyway)
>
> I know my message went out to the list, because I had a reply to it, not
> from anyone reading the Piclist or the archive , but from the poster of the
> original. I guess it was forwarded by one of the
> censors/moderators/whateveryoucallit's.
>
> And don't get me wrong, I do understand why it was done. The noise level
> would have been high. Accept that this was probably the best way to deal
> with this.
>
> I wonder if there where others that posted to this thread.
>
> Reply's in private please, enough said already.
>
> Peter
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pic microcontroller discussion list
> > [mailto:PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU]On Behalf Of Mark Willis
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 1:08 AM
> > To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> > Subject: Re: [ADMIN] PICList Content
> >
> >
> > Nope;  Moderation specifically means that each & every message anyone
> > posts to the list, has to be approved by a moderator before any other
> > PICList members view it.
> >
> > Think of it like, "Every message starts off deleted, unless one of the
> > moderators feels like undeleting it."
> >
> > You'd know how busy the moderators were by how many messages they
> > released daily, in bursts when they were available online, and the huge
> > lags when they were busy.  It'd take about 10 people to make it work,
> > I'd guess?
> >
> > Moderation is like customs:  An impassable choke point.  Not what *I*
> > want here <G>
> >
> > What we have is a list full of people who (mostly) exercise
> > SELF-control, more or less <G>, and 2 admins who have the ability to
> > read all messages posted to the list eventually, and delete users who go
> > way out of line (I think I've deleted 2 whole users for that, maybe 3?)
> > - OTOH, I've deleted about 80 users at their request, when their ISP
> > changed (for example, user@isp1.com suddenly had to re-subscribe to
> > user@newmail.isp1a.com due to a merger, etc. - or they changed ISP's due
> > to an ISP closing or changing jobs - etc.)  Maybe more 'n 80;  With 2
> > lists, it'd be 150 deletions, give or take.  (Wild Guesses, I can go
> > count but'd rather not!)
> >
> >   Mark
> >
> > Peter van Hoof wrote:
> > >
> > > This list is already (on a small scale) moderated.
> > > Didn't it surprise you that, on the last extremely off topic
> > and religious
> > > topic there where NO REPLY'S , at least not on the list!
> > >
> > > (I WAS ONE OF THE POSTER'S OF A REPLY)
> > >
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > > Creating a newsgroup, moderating the list, or splitting the list
> > > > up all will
> > > > produce negative side effects.  I'm willing to bet on it.
> > > > Valuable members
> > > > will leave the list. Valuable content will go unpublished.