Either I misunderstand the purpose of the list-serve, or I misunderstand Chris Mahan. I thought the purpose of the listserve. I thought one of the purposes was to promote open dialogue about policy. I assume that dialogue involves sharing and discussing values, principles, and methods from different points of view. I took it for granted that any posting to the listserve reflects the author's point of view, and I assumed that it was not only alright but valuable that I present my own point of view. This is what I was doing when I wrote:

> I just don't want to see
> someone
> use Wikipedia as a vehicle for hate speech.

So frankly, I do not understand Chris Mahan's response:

Your POV.

Of course it is my point of view. From context, CM seems to be suggesting that it is not valid because it is my point of view. Why not? I don't get it.

Earlier, CM or someone else suggested that freedom of speech should be one of my values. In order to explain why banning anti-Semitism from Wikipedia would not infringe on freedom of speech, I wrote,

--- "steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste@ohiou.edu> wrote:
> What WHEELER wrote may very
> well be
> legal -- so he can write it elsewhere.

and CM responded,

Why not here? We're a public forum.

But then CM wrote

If they're being
destructive, then ban them.

which is exactly my point. Hate speech is destructive. Does this now mean that CM agrees with me?

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701