BK>>~>>  However, in trying to encourage others to violate the rules in
BK>>~>>  my echo you are trying to sabatoge my echo.

 RN> [...]

BK>> You are trying to sabatoge my echo by turning it into a flame
BK>> echo just like the ones you run.

BK>> And threatening a moderator for how he moderates his echo is
BK>> nothing more than extortion. So, yes, you are trying to sabatoge
BK>> my echo.

 RN> As a disinterested observer here, I don't see anyone trying
 RN> to sabotage your echo.  It is as healthy as ever.  Maybe

 You have not been observing the interplay very long. The echo is
 quite healthy. However, their intention is not to bring down the
 echo traffic, but to turn it into a flame echo.

 RN> they are offering opinions which differ from yours in
 RN> stronger language, but not using expletives as you did
 RN> above which I omitted with the "[...]".

 Please show where anyone is moderated for expressing a differing
 opinion in my echo. Actually, where do you see anyone being
 moderated for pretty much anything other than personal attacks?
 Oh, and posting complete articles.

 The previous moderator did moderate content, the rule about
 libel was his, and he did bird dog that. I have a more liberal
 view... I won't moderate on libel against a public figure unless
 it's an extreme case. Since I never moderated any of the
 commentary on Clinton, that "extreme" really means extreme.

 Against private citizens I would have to consider that, but what
 private citizens (non-public figures) who do not post in the
 echo are discussed in the echo?

 So, no, your defence of them falls down on all points.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn{at}sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Blaming others can become a satisfying way of life.
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a