Re: ‘censorship’

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

You replied privately, offlist.  Was it intentional?  If yes, why: I see 
nothing secret there?  If no, may I resent it back to the list?

David <postmaster@customer-opinions.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 23:47:42 +0300
>> Dmitry Alexandrov <321942@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > David <postmaster@customer-opinions.net> wrote:
>> > > Calling such actions "censorship" is a very extreme reaction IMHO as the 
>> > > very same core points could have been made in a less excitable manner 
>> > > without potential breaching of the above linked guidelines
>> > 
>> > That’s curious.  Could you elaborate, please, why censoring due to form 
>> > rather than due to substance is not censorship?  No dictionary available 
>> > to me suggest it.

>  Sorry to double send but, on review, I think a bit more explanation is 
> needed.

>  the points in question can avoid censorship, or hit it head on, depending on 
> how they are put. Daniel was triggering blocking/censorship head on by 
> stating his points in a way which breached the guidelines on many levels

>  It would have been a rather trivial matter for Daniel to have stated his key 
> points in a non-controversial way

>  I hope I've clarified this for you now but if I can be of more assistance 
> please let me know.

Thank you for a thorough explanation of censor’s motives.  But... I suppose 
now, my question was poorly phrased: I had to clarify, that it actually has 
nothing do to with Daniel’s letter specifically, but to ‘censorship’ in general.

As you noticed, I am not an Anglophone, so on reading your remark, I suspected 
that I misunderstood how the word ‘censorship’ is used in English.  To me it 
looked (and still looks) fully applicable to forbidding expressions as well as 
ideas.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature