Russell McMahon wrote:
> Much of what you (Olin) say, including [perspective on historical
> events, is necessarily "gospel according to Olin" as i would hope that
> you would recognise.

Of course.  The opinions are mine but I don't think I got the facts wrong.

> You have provided an excellent example case. As I have only ever
> declined one message from you (AFAIR) but have passed many, the one
> you are referring to below is clear enough.

Unless someone goes out of their way to sign a message, there is no way to
tell which moderator rejected it.

> From memory (and it won't do any harm if what you produce
> demonstrates
> my memory is lacking) when I rejected your post
>
> -  I wrote a substantial comment to you explaining why I had done it,

Yes, you did.  Unfortunately I didn't think to keep a copy at the time of
either my original message nor your rejection of it.  I wish I had because
I'd really like people to see what sort of trivial stuff gets rejected.

You basically apologized for rejecting the message, yet did it anyway.  You
were trying to be as nice as possible, other than of course rejecting my
message.  Your objection was that I wasn't being quite nice enough to
whomever I was replying to.  I agree you would have been nicer in the same
circumstances, but that's you.  Personally I think you spend too many words
that detract from your posts to go out of your way to not hurt someone's
feelings.  That's your style.  While I find that a bit annoying at times, I
accept that's your style and would not aim to change it or censor it if I
had the power to do so.  I doubt you actually could change in general.  Sure
you could spend extra effort to change the syle of a few messages, but that
would be too much trouble and get annoying fast.  So it is with everyone
else, including me.

(It also helps that you generally have good things to say and you clearly
know what you're doing.  Therefore it's often worth wading thru the rambles
to find the few good parts of your messages.)

There are many people on this list with a wide range of styles in several
dimensions.  Every one of them is going to rub someone the wrong way, yours
included.  However, censoring something just because *you* don't happen to
like it is wrong.  The right answer is for everyone to be more tolerant.  If
you don't like the way somebody responded, delete it and forget about it.
Once you realize that no harm is really done by a bunch of words from
someone (think of them as some ---hole if that helps) at the other end of
the internet, this is very easy to do.

> -  noting that what you said was reasonable enough in its own right
> but inadmissible in the circumstances due to how it would be very
> liable to to list instability and

Whatever I said was very mild.  I really don't remember what it was about,
but there was no call to reject it other than it wasn't how you would have
said it.

This slippery slope is one of the reasons moderation is so wrong.  It starts
trying to weed out messages that are clearly out of line.  But then the
mechanism is all set up and its so easy to start rejecting messages for ever
more trivial reasons.  If someone else had written the same thing that was
not being moderated, most on the list would not have given it a second
thought.  It certainly would not have triggered putting the poster on
moderation.  Another way to put this is that due to the inevitable human
nature of the moderators, those on moderation get held to a ever increasing
higher standard.  That's wrong.

> - I apologised for doing so and noted that it couldn't be nice having
> 'people in power' excercising such apparently arbitrary rights and
> that i was sorry to annoy you by doing so  and
>
> - I invited you to submit the post again and said that if you did so
> I'd leave it alone and let some other admin make a decision on it.
>
> Now, I may be mixing up some of my very few rejects from other people
> there, but I think probably not.

No, I'm quite sure we're talking about the same post, and I agree with the
facts as you have presented them.

This point was that this was moderation clearly taken too far.  Yes I could
have resubmitted the post, and I have no doubt that you would have let it
thru as you said you would.  But it wasn't about that post anymore.  I had
been putting up with moderation for several months, trying to give you guys
some slack for a while.  This was the last straw, and I wasn't going to take
it anymore.

> If my response did in fact include most or all of the points above I
> think that people would find it a fascinating exercise to compare what
> I wrote, to your current perspective of it. By all means prove me
> wrong - demonstrations of my incorrectness usually do me good after
> the initial pain :-).
>
> I think the above is traditionally termed a "put up or shut up"
> request. I in my excessively PC manner [tm] would of course never put
> it that way :-).

See, this is one of the differences.  I would have take no offense if you
had simply said "this is a put up or shut up", because it is, and that's
also a reasonable response from you given the circumstances.

> I would however welcome you posting my original rejection response for
> the editication of all. (If your record and backup systems are even
> only a shadow of what I imagine them to be it should take only a
> moment to do so).

Sometimes I wish I was as great as everyone thought I was ;-)

If you thought of keeping a copy, or the list server did somehow, please
post it.

> If that response is the sort of input that causes you to withdraw your
> undoubtedly valued and valuable input from the majority then so be it.
> I, like most, respect your technical capabilities and skills and have
> been impressed by your (past) willingness to contribute.

OK, so let me contribute, and recognize it's going to be in my style because
I can't change that (and don't want to) any more than you can change yours
(and likely don't want to either).  I don't suffer fools or sloths lightly,
and I'm going to tell them so.  However, if someone asks a honest and
reasonable question, I usually try to give a good answer.  You don't get the
second without the first, and you certainly don't have the right to weed out
only the parts you don't like.

> I'll currently hold my counsel on most of the rest - admin informal
> policy has long been to largely not be drawn into firefights onlist on
> such matters.

This isn't a firefight.  It's important to discuss list policy in the open,
as long as it doesn't turn into a food fight.

> 1.     re my being "   PC  off the deep end ..." - you obviously
> haven't had any substantial real life dealings with me :-). My
> intentions are always for the best of all. The results sometimes leave
> a modicum of individual annoyance - as at present. (Not something I
> aim at as a by product). .
>
> 2.  The substantial body of material that I have written offlist over
> the years, either TO admins or as an admin, *in your defence* would
> make interesting reading :-)

Don't get me wrong, Russell.  I'm not really pissed off at you, but at the
system that you are a part of.  I do respect your integrity, technical
ability, and well meaning.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist