>On Fri, 19 May 2000 11:48:49 -0400, Hugh wrote
>Jean-Marc writes:
>> I wish I could take more time and be constructive in my answer.
>> In short, any attempt to censor/kick out Bob of the list through
>> any kind of moderation/vote will see me leave scuba-l on the
>> spot.

After reviewing the complete LACK of SUPPORT of Hugh's proposal
to censor or ban ME from Scuba-L, I am rather amused but not
amazed to find Hugh's sudden change of TUNE, pertaining to the
TARGET in his proposed Censorship and Kangaroo Court.   ;-)

As I had said in my preceding reply, it is VERY EASY to follow
this thread if you merely go to

and read this thread in Week 3 of May 2000!

>However, I would like to take a moment to point out that there
>seems to be a lot FUD being used with the "C" word (Censorship).

Hugh, what you have proposed, or tried to hold your kangaroo court,
is CENSORSHIP, pure and simple, and of the worst kind because you're
proposing it to suit your own whim!

>First off, remember that this is a scuba-centric list by definition,
>which means that this group is going to focus on scuba subjects
>to the purposeful exclusion of others.

Just WHICH ONE of my posts is not "scuba-centric" in your original
campaign to censor/ban me in Scuba-L?

> You can't routinely discuss the local baseball/football/etc
> sports teams here for example.

Since I have NEVER posted any of these, I see Hugh appeared to
have shifted his TARGET to J.M. and Bjorn who dared speaking up
against Hugh's self-appointed role of Scuba Cop and Judgeship.

Hmmm ... I don't see any "routine" discussion of "off topic"
threads in Scuba-L in recent MONTHS.  Again, the ARCHIVES will
provide the FACTS.  I certainly didn't see such in the weeks I
was diving in Cozumel this month.

For April 2000, Week 4, the only "off topic" threads in that
week in the Scuba-L webpage archives were:

>38.OT.: Help please
>          OT.: Help please (29 lines)
>          From: Giorgio Soffiati <[log in to unmask]>
>          Re: OT.: Help please (45 lines)
>          From: Sean Muller <[log in to unmask]>
>          Re: OT.: Help please (37 lines)
>          From: J.M. Vitoux <[log in to unmask]>

That thread was actually "on topic" (on scuba camera equipment)
though stated as "OT" <Off Topic> by Georgio.

>  39.Off Topic soccer (was:Re: Dive Computer use)
>          Off Topic soccer (was:Re: Dive Computer use) (26 lines)
>          From: Kuty <[log in to unmask]>
>          Re: Off Topic soccer (was:Re: Dive Computer use) (27 lines)
>          From: Bjorn Vang Jensen <[log in to unmask]>

Naughty Boy, Bjorn!  :-)  J.M., and a few others too, who mentioned
in passing, in some light banter about "soccer" championship when
the Dive Computer threads (over 100 posts in one week) got extremely
tedious and redundant.  ;-)

You guys should be BANNED from Scuba-L, according to Judge Huntzinger!

Well, in his haste to change the TUNE, Hugh slipped up and
overlooked himself on THIS "off topic" thread, started by HIM,
on "Brick -n- martar":

>10.Brick -n- mortar vs. mail/internet
>          Brick -n- mortar vs. mail/internet (61 lines)
>          From: Huntzinger, Hugh A [AMSTA-AR-CCL-B] <[log in to unmask]>
>          Re: Brick -n- mortar vs. mail/internet (84 lines)
>          From: Huntzinger, Hugh A [AMSTA-AR-CCL-B] <[log in to unmask]>

Geez, the only "Brick" I've used in any scuba-related context is
what we call the "ORCA Edge computer", and I don't recall any
scuba-use of "mortar", and clearly Hugh wasn't discussing anything
"scuba-centric" there, to have started the new SUBJECT on Brick
and mortar.

What's going on, Hugh?

>If you want to do that, the solution is to go to a list where that's
>the focus of their charter.  If you refuse to do so and continue to
>"Spam" the list with box scores, yes, you will be terminated.

Scuba Cop & Judge Hugh, don't be so sure of yourself!  This is STILL
the U.S.A. in which many fundamental principles such as "free speech"
cannot so readily be violated by anyone!  The fact that no one has
ever, or will, spam this list with box scores is beside the point!

>Is this is censorship?   Yes, if that's how you choose to define it.

You have to ASK if "this is censorship?"  What ELSE can YOU call it?

The VERY FEW "off topic" posts in recent months in Scuba-L are NOT
a problem to anyone but to you Hugh, as a CONTRIVED new excuse,
when your original excuse to censor/ban me drew no sympathetic

>because people have historically been willing to give up some
>of their "freedom of speech" for improved topicality.

A thousand times No!  As J.M. correctly pointed out, the ONLY
"speech" not allowed (and clearly stated in SOME ngs and lists,
and specifically in the Scuba-L Guidelines and chartered info)
is Commercial ADS.

In the periodically posted Guideline, the only unconditional,
clearcut BAN is simply stated as:


>If a newsgroup doesn't exist where for whatever topic one wishes to
>discuss, a new group can be created in this medium.

True in the fictional EXTREME scenario which clearly doesn't apply
to Scuba-L.

>If one nevertheless find censorship in even this form so personally
>distasteful, then I have to say "the exit is thataway".

Yes, I find your idea of censorship EXTREMELY distasteful.
I would point the same exit to YOU, Hugh.

>> IMO, this should only apply in case of spamming a la Jim Morris.
>We already have more than one criteria for removing a person.
>Spam is one.  Commercialism is another (which was Morris's actual
>offense).   There are also administrative removal of members who
>inadvertently 'Spam' the list due to bounced mail from server
>problems, etc.  Each situation is unique in how it is addressed.

J.M. is absolutely correct in the spirit of "free speech" in
this Open Forum in LISTSERV.  HIS point (and that of using the
delete key and filter) has been amply supported by EVERYONE who
posted in this thread (except perhaps your co-instigator Nick).

Listen to the REAL AUTHOR (and his HONEST and CREDIBLE opinion) of the
"Scuba-L Guidelines and information", periodically posted by Nick:

>Date:         Fri, 19 May 2000 09:08:11 -0400
>From:         Don Ward <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject:      Re: Time for an RFD?

DW> I too am opposed to rules for discussion.  As I said when the
DW> proposed guidelines of a few months ago, these will just serve
DW> as something new to fight over.  I think Michael Levy and Bjorn
DW> have it right.
DW> You don't like someone's post, filter or delete.  I will add
DW> to this the very simple solution of ignoring offensive posts.

Regarding Don's last sentence above and Hugh's latest change of
TUNE (from his personal attack of ME) to his attack of "off topic"
(non "scuba-centric") posts, see

May 2000, Week 1, "Flaming Bob please delete if not interested" thread:

1.  Was that "on topic"?

2.  Did *I* participate in ANY of the 13 posts in that thread?

DW> I wouldn't support removing someone from the list for being
DW> obnoxious, I just ignore/filter/delete.

I wouldn't support removing ANYBODY from this list for ANY reason
other than the clearly stated ban on Commercial Advertising!  NOR
have I ever filtered anybody.  I either respond (in reasoned and
factual rebuttal, as in these TWO posts) or ignore (as in the Flaming
Bob thread and several posts that frivolously flamed me this month
while I was in Coz May 2-19).

Hugh -- in your continuation of your GRUDGE against me, you have
only succeeded in shooting your own foot, once again, and PROVEN
by DOCUMENTED FACTS everyone can see in the Scuba-L archives
(irrespective of what YOU say about me and how you now squirm or
wiggle via obfuscation, as changing the targets of your unwarranted
attack of me to your "off topic" target on others.

It's all in

with specific and particular references furnished by me, in my
TWO replies to your posts in this thread.

-- Bob.

Hugh's examples speak AGAINST his proposed "rule for censorship"
in an environment in which LISTSERV has dealt with for YEARS
without any problem until Hugh comes along, to act as self-
annointed Scuba Cop and Kangaroo Court Judge.

See Sept 1999, Week 3, "The Natural Life Cycle of Mailing Lists"

>The focus is the fair consideration of the general membership who
>are here to see and participate in _Scuba_ topics, which is the
>stated goal of our charter.

Stop your sermonizing and back-peddling on your FAILURE to elicit
public support in censoring/banning ME from Scuba-L!

Hugh, why don't you enlighten us by pointing out WHICH of the
threads (or posts) in May 2000 Week 3, are so "off topic" that
invited you to be the self-appointed censor?

-- Bob.