Don't miss the end of my response.
I get more and more to the point as I go on.
Like you, I have no problem with moderated lists. My objection to Bruce's
Cal-Libs list was that Bruce indicated he liked my post, but insisted on
micro-managing every word. For those un-aware, this post was an e-mail
exchange, in which I exchanged e-mails with a Green in order to clear up
some misconceptions a Green Party member had about the Libertarian party.
posted the entire exchange without editing. The exchange was friendly,
in Bruce's judgment is was "too confrontational." He objected to my
that she was ignorant about Libertarian principles, which she did not take
offense too, and even agreed with.
I mainly felt that Sandor's letter was 'off topic'.
Bruce wanted me to re-write it as an activism letter on how to convert
Greens. I had neither the time or desire to do so, and didn't think it
would make any difference anyway, so I told him to just forgo posting it,
but also predicted failure of this list, based on few Libertarians willing
to abide by such stringent editing requirements. I went on to bet Bruce
$100 that his group would have fewer than 100 members a year from now. He
went on to take this as challenge, offering to donate the $100 he won to a
Libertarian charity as a carrot to get people to join his group. I
considered this dirty poker, and called off the bet based on this. Of
course he disagreed.
To be 100% accurate, Sandor was originally fine with making changes
as I suggested them. But, he requested that I edit the letter instead of
I just didn't have the time or desire.
For anyone considering joining Bruce's Cal-Libs group be forewarned: In
addition to the reasonable requirement that the subject matter be
with the groups focus, you may have to re-edit your message several times
suit Bruce's requirements. I simply told him that I will exercise my
not no participate in a group with such onerous requirements, and bet him
that most Libertarians won't either.
No micro-managing at all.
The idea is to keep to our stated aims, and to avoid the
unpleasant exchanges (such as this one) that folks seem to
get stuck in.
In point of fact, I got many e-mails opposing Sandor's view
and style as presented in the letter in question. I did not
allow those to post, either.
Here is the Mission Statement of the Group:
"This is a group for Libertarian activists and their supporters.
It is designed to be free of politics in the sense that we forbid arguing,
'flaming' and ad hominem attacks.
Our goal is to support and encourage the efforts of libertarian Activists
by having a friendly place to share, discuss and promote ideas.
Please stick to posting ideas and efforts that are yours and
to things related to the 'big four' of political activism.
1) Members 2) Money 3) Votes 4) Education
Furthermore, please stick to topics and ideas that are germane to
We're about tipics directly related to the effort to increase our outreach
as it relates to the 'big four' above.
This newsgroup is 'owned' by Ross and moderated by Bruce Cohen.
Ross is a long time Libertarian activist and businessman.
Bruce is Elected to the Executive Committee of the LP of CA and
of Orange County, as well as Chairing a committee for each organization.
He's a California Realtor professionally. This is a labor of love for both
Bruce and Ross, who will be happy to respond personally and directly to
any comments, suggestions or criticism.
Finally, any guidelines or limitations are not meant to censor or
limit ideas or discussion, but rather to focus the efforts and energy
of this group to achieving results and maximizing the return on investment
of time and effort by the activist members of the group. There are plenty
of groups that offer unguided and un-moderated discussion,
and any person can start any group they wish to."
This is virtually unchanged since Sandor signed up.
The only change is a reference to the CA Gubernatorial election
that has been removed and that part polished.
Again, I like Sandor personally.
I agree with him on 95% of the issues and generally only disagree
on a few style issues. I have supported him many times in the past,
even when it's been to my personal and political detriment.
I have responded to Sandor's comments about this situation mostly
privately, but he's felt the discussion important enough to air it openly.
I only respond today to clarify a few points.
I do however wish to point out that my time worth more than the $1.40
per new member the group might have been able to donate, should
Doctor Woren have decided to honor his bet. In fact, every time he
rails against me and the mission of the group, a few more people join.
Please feel free to join at:
We're up to 36 members and don't have the flood of spam
and irrelevant discussion other groups do. This month so far,
there have been 14 messages and last month 12.
Our intent is to have a friendly and valuable exchange of ideas
and information for activists. We especially hope that this will
be the case as the election season heats up.
Yours in freedom and Liberty,
Libertarian Congressional Candidate, 48th US District
> From: George Reis [mailto:reis@…]
> Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 8:47 AM
> To: Rick L. Root; Bruce Cohen; Sandor J. Woren; email@example.com
> Cc: Mike Dilger; Robert Fliegler; RMacNair@aol. com; Richard B. Boddie;
> Nolayan Hergdegen; Mikeeverling@Earthlink. Net; LVLBRTY@aol. com; LPSM
> Discussion Group; Lpoc-Echo@Lpoc. Org; LPOC-ECHO; Lpc-La@List. Tyrell.
> Com; Libertarian Candidates; Leonard D. Woren; Jay Cavanaugh Ph. D.;
> Harvey M. Woien; Dave Nolan; Aleksandra Fliegler
> Subject: Re: [LPOC] Re: [cal-libs] Help bring new activists to
> Cal-Libs,get $100.00 for Liberty!
> The concept of moderated lists is an interesting one - there are
> lists that
> allow any and all posts, there are lists that pre-screen posts, and
> are lists that do not pre-screen posts, but have consequences for
> those who
> break the charter of the list.
> It seems to me that Libertarians would agree with the first and third
> of list management - either allowing anything, or waiting until a
> occurs before taking action. When I ran a list I had specific
> rules for the
> list - content had to be based on the topic of the list, specific vendor
> recommendation wasn't allowed, personal name calling wasn't
> allowed, etc. I
> published the charter to the list monthly. I allowed all posts. When
> was a violation (which was rarely) I sent a not to the individual
> them of the issue. Depending on the issue, I sometimes also
> posted something
> to the list, like "please don't post virus warnings, this list is
> not about
> computers, viruses, e-mail scams, etc. Thanks." That always did
> the trick. I
> never had to suspend someone from the list - but would have if I
> would have
> had multiple posts about pan-Islamists, for example.
> The difference in management style between how I ran my list and
> a moderated
> list is the same as the difference between a Libertarian form of
> international relations and the common method of pre-emptive
> strikes. In our
> current world situation, we are less likely to get hit, but the rights
> many are infringed upon (a very high cost). In the Libertarian view,