PipeChat Digest #656 - Tuesday, January 12, 1999
 
Re: [Ballet] G & S in the Senate (fwd)
  by "Mark Harris" <M.Harris@Admin.lon.ac.uk>
New Broude Buxtehude (xpost)
  by "Paul Opel" <popel@sover.net>
(no subject)
  by <ORGANUT@aol.com>
Re: (no subject)
  by "Jon C. Habermaas" <opus1100@ameritech.net>
Re: (no subject) Censorship
  by <douglas@blackiris.com>
Re: (no subject) Censorship
  by <ORGANUT@aol.com>
Re: (no subject) Censorship
  by <ORGANUT@aol.com>
Re: (no subject)
  by <RSiegel920@aol.com>
Re: Pipechat Censorship
  by "S LaManna" <slamanna@hotmail.com>
Re: Pipechat Censorship
  by "Steven Margison" <steve@organman.com>
Re: Pipechat Censorship
  by <ORGANUT@aol.com>
Pipe Org-L How do I get on that list
  by <Cantuar@aol.com>
Re: Pipe Org-L How do I get on that list
  by "David Scribner" <david@blackiris.com>
Re: Pipe Org-L How do I get on that list
  by <OrganMD@aol.com>
Re: Pipechat Censorship
  by "Administrator" <admin@pipechat.org>
Re: [Ballet] G & S in the Senate (fwd)
  by "Cliff Benham" <cbenham@bellatlantic.net>
 


(back) Subject: Re: [Ballet] G & S in the Senate (fwd) From: "Mark Harris" <M.Harris@Admin.lon.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 09:58:29 GMT   Roger Pariseau wrote:   > > The question was asked whether Chief Justice Rehnquist's > > judicial robe, with the gold stripes on the sleeves, is > > based on a G & S character.   --I guess the obvoius choice would have to be the Lord Chancellor from "Iolanthe", when he introduces himself in song with these words:   The Law is the true embodiment Of ev'rything that's excellent; It has no kind of fault or flaw And I, my Lords, embody the Law.   Perhaps Rehnquist will attempt to emulate his Lordship by giving judgment andante in 6/8 time!   Mark ====     * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mark Harris * S-mail: Finance & Accounting Division, University of London, Room 255, Senate * House, Malet Street, London WC1E 7HU * E-mail: M.Harris@admin.lon.ac.uk * Direct line/voicemail: 0171-862 8222 * Fax: 0171-862 8210 * http://www.lon.ac.uk/aut/ * * Frigus ac tenebras carmine superemus * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  
(back) Subject: New Broude Buxtehude (xpost) From: Paul Opel <popel@sover.net> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 07:12:20 -0400   Hello, lists- A shameless piece of commercialism, here. The first volume of organ music in Broude Brothers' new edition is finally out- Vol. 15, Keyboard Works I, parts A & B, edited by Christoph Wolff. It contains the pedaliter Preludes, Toccatas, and Ciacconas in two hardcover volumes, printed on two staves (you decide what goes in the pedal), one volume of music and the other of exhaustive critical commentary. Because the volume was delayed so long, the pre-publication price of $175.00 has been extended to April 30, 1999 (after that, it goes to $200.00). There is some interest in putting out the music volume only in softcover, but that won't happen for several years.   North American customers can get a deal on the shipping, for $7.50. Customers outside of Europe should contact:   Broude Brothers Limited 141 White Oaks Road Williamstown, MA 01267 1-800-525-8559 broude@sover.net   Customers in Europe should contact:   Broude Europa Rosmarinstrasse 15 D-55232 Alzey Germany 6731 10906   Sorry for the advertising on the list, but there are those on the list who may want it!   Paul   http://www.sover.net/~popel      
(back) Subject: (no subject) From: ORGANUT@aol.com Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 08:45:17 EST   I have a question about censorship being practiced on the internet by a list owner.   Is it ethical or legal for a listowner to have each posting to his list routed through his server to be censored before going on the net? I can easily understand not wanting any vulgarity or profanity on one's page; but even so would that not be censorship? Would you want to be a member of a web site that censored everything you wanted to say? That is:the owner decides what is worthy of dissemination based on his personal prejudices.   The reason I am asking this is because several friends of mine plus a number of respondents, on the net, appear to be having their postings filtered and certain ones are not making it on this particular web site. It appears to be filtered purely because it made mention of a lawsuit being filed against a fellow pipe organ enthusiast. If this indeed is the case, would this not be a first amendment violation?   If this posting does not make it on that particular web site, then I will know that is the case.   Opinions anyone?   Later, Phil L.  
(back) Subject: Re: (no subject) From: "Jon C. Habermaas" <opus1100@ameritech.net> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 07:54:18 -0600   I would think that it is just as ethical as a print media outlet that edits material before it publishes it. Since I read your post I guess it didn't get filtered. I don't think it is unreasonable for a list owner to be concerned about the material he is passing onto others. Judging by some of the postings I've seen on the lists I subscribe to I find it hard to believe that they have been filtered in the least. Some of the postings can be very inflammatory and follow ups by the list owners have advised the subscribers to adhere to the list guidelines if they want to continue to have post privilege. I've seen little or no evidence to indicate that censorship is occurring.   regards,   Jon C. Habermaas   ORGANUT@aol.com wrote: > > > I have a question about censorship being practiced on the internet by a list > owner. > > Is it ethical or legal for a listowner to have each posting to his list routed > through his server to be censored before going on the net? I can easily > understand not wanting any vulgarity or profanity on one's page; but even so > would that not be censorship? Would you want to be a member of a web site > that censored everything you wanted to say? That is:the owner decides what is > worthy of dissemination based on his personal prejudices. > > The reason I am asking this is because several friends of mine plus a number > of respondents, on the net, appear to be having their postings filtered and > certain ones are not making it on this particular web site. It appears to be > filtered purely because it made mention of a lawsuit being filed against a > fellow pipe organ enthusiast. If this indeed is the case, would this not be a > first amendment violation? > > If this posting does not make it on that particular web site, then I will know > that is the case. > > Opinions anyone? > > Later, > Phil L. > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org  
(back) Subject: Re: (no subject) Censorship From: douglas@blackiris.com Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 08:04:46 -0600   Phil L.   Can you let us know which site/list you are talking about - you crossposted to several lists and I wondered if one of these was the list you were referring to.     > > The reason I am asking this is because several friends of mine plus a > number of respondents, on the net, appear to be having their postings > filtered and certain ones are not making it on this particular web site.      
(back) Subject: Re: (no subject) Censorship From: ORGANUT@aol.com Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 09:21:44 EST   Yes, one of them is. My posting did not make it one of the 4. I will let you know later.   Phil L  
(back) Subject: Re: (no subject) Censorship From: ORGANUT@aol.com Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 09:37:07 EST   My listing did not make it to 2 out of 6. I had a spelling error on one.   Later, Phil L.  
(back) Subject: Re: (no subject) From: RSiegel920@aol.com Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 14:33:26 EST   In a message dated 1/11/99 7:49:10 AM Central Standard Time, ORGANUT@aol.com writes:   << It appears to be filtered purely because it made mention of a lawsuit being filed against a fellow pipe organ enthusiast. If this indeed is the case, would this not be a first amendment violation? >>   The constitution generally guarantees freedom of speech only against infringement by the government, government agents or employees, or government related entities. Unless the list in question is owned by a government agency, I would find it hard to show how the list owner is infringing anyone's first amendment rights by determining what he/she wants posted on their own site. For what it's worth R. J. Siegel Not offered as or intended to be legal advice.  
(back) Subject: Re: Pipechat Censorship From: "S LaManna" <slamanna@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 11:41:56 PST   I have to agree with Mr. Siegel.   Each mailserver list is run by someone, and that individual or individuals have the right to make the rules as to what gets posted if they so desire.   Generally, it does not happen, unless things get off topic...   When I first joined, there were a lost of flamings, etc. and the list owner exercised the prerogative to stop it.   If we don't like what is censored, we have the right to start our own list somewhere.   Steve   ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com  
(back) Subject: Re: Pipechat Censorship From: "Steven Margison" <steve@organman.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 13:57:36 -0600   WOW -- Serious Deja Vu Here! I was a subscriber to CompuServe way back in 1979 or 80, and this topic came up every so often on the Special Interest Group forums (SIGs). It was decided (with suitable legal backup) that CompuServe, as OWNER of the forum, had the UNEQUIVOCAL right to determine what was posted and what was not. First Amendment did not apply, as it was a PRIVATE enterprise. I see no reason why this would not apply to List Servers as well. Now, mind you, I am not advocating censorship -- that is another topic I will not discuss here. But the fact is that the owner of a discussion list is totally within his/her rights to determine what gets posted. I participate in a wood worker's forum where the owner is VERY strict with his rules. Owners of a website cannot mention links to their site no matter what the reason, and it is all perfectly legal.   Old news -- let's talk about something else......         |===================== Steve Margison =====================| |=== Staff Organist, Tivoli Theatre, Downers Grove, IL ===| | Organs, Theatres, Woodworking, Lots more at my WebSite: | | www.organman.com | |==========================================================|    
(back) Subject: Re: Pipechat Censorship From: ORGANUT@aol.com Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 14:56:10 EST   Steve,   I got off one list for that very same reason. Putting a post on that list was like navigating a mine field. The most innocuous comment could get you flamed or crucified instantly. I know. It happened to me more than once!   Later, Phil L.  
(back) Subject: Pipe Org-L How do I get on that list From: Cantuar@aol.com Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 19:48:02 EST   Greetings - I used to be on both this list and another organ list who's name was something like PIPEORG-L. Somehow, I stopped getting the postings from that list.   Can anyone tell me the procedure for signing up?   Thanks...  
(back) Subject: Re: Pipe Org-L How do I get on that list From: David Scribner <david@blackiris.com> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 19:03:10 -0600   >Greetings - >I used to be on both this list and another organ list who's name was something >like PIPEORG-L. Somehow, I stopped getting the postings from that list. > >Can anyone tell me the procedure for signing up? > >Thanks...   To join PIPORG-L send a message to listserv@albany.edu with the following in the message BODy (not the subject line)   Subscribe piporg-l Firstname Lastname   You will get an acknowledgemetn message that you have to respond to and once you have done that you will be back on the list.   David  
(back) Subject: Re: Pipe Org-L How do I get on that list From: OrganMD@aol.com Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 20:04:05 EST   If my memory is right......   send a post to: listserv@albany.edu   in the text type: subscribe piporg-l   I hope that this will solve your troubles.   Bill Hesterman  
(back) Subject: Re: Pipechat Censorship From: Administrator <admin@pipechat.org> Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1999 22:06:08 -0600   Phil   First of all as one of the List Owners I can tell you that there is no censorship that happens on this list. Both Pete and I see the posts at the same time everyone else sees them, we don't get them in advance.   But it is the option of a List Owner to restrict postings to their list. Each and every one of these lists are founded and owned by someone or in our case owned by a couple of us. The list owner has set up the topic for the list and guidelines for the use of the list. Those who subscribe are guests of the owner and are bound to follow the guidelines that have been set-up. This is a long established custom on the internet.   Since these lists are privately "owned" there is no infringement of "First Amendment rights" by these restrictions.   I hope that this clears it up for you.   David **************************************** David Scribner Co-Owner / Technical Administrator PipeChat   850-478-9635 david@blackiris.com  
(back) Subject: Re: [Ballet] G & S in the Senate (fwd) From: Cliff Benham <cbenham@bellatlantic.net> Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 00:16:56 -0500   ....and one for you, and one for ye, but Never, oh Never, One for me!