As a member, most of the time, of SCREEN-L's lurking "silent majority," I thought I'd air some concerns before, perhaps, removing my address from the list. I sensed in Jeremy's query about moderating the list some of the discomfort I've felt with the tone and content of what is perhaps now the majority of SCREEN-L's postings. I can't imagine that I'm alone in experiencing a certain regular, discouraging feeling every time I sign on to my e-mail, knowing that I will have to sort through so many messages whose tone is so decidedly uncollegial. A discussion of "pc," for example, might actually be something of real use and interest to SCREEN-L's subscribers. But the tenor of most of the postings regarding the topic has often been uncivil -- a real shame, since a sustained, lively, and critical debate that would seek to test some of the perceived orthodoxies of contemporary academic film studies would be a wonderful thing. Obviously, those of us with a "serious" interest in the issue are not feeling well served by the current postings. We have, of course, mostly ourselves to blame, for not taking the time to offer our thoughts. But then, those few valiant efforts at reasoned debate that do get posted tend to be made the immediate targets of ridicule and unargued "good-clean-fun" sniping. It's really an interesting issue, and one which will become more and more of a problem as bulletin boards grow in size and usefulness. Is my displeasure at much of SCREEN-L's tone and content simply an elitist urge to remove from my field of vision less "professionalized" ways of interacting? Conversly, while I support the "democratic ideal" of the board, why should I be subjected to a daily onslaught of sniping and opinionating? But then, is it really my job to try to police other people's speech? Why can't I just ignore all the uncivil jibing and speak to my chosen peers without worrying about the non-essential messages that may pop up as a result? Certainly, I have identified many of the people whose messages tend most regularly to offend me, and have on occassion simply deleted their postings before bothering to read them -- a practice which my "democratic" side still rebels against, however, and I'd be suspicious of assigning the "management" (e.g., the censorship) of the list to someone -- even someone as genial and tireless as Jeremy. (And my unease regarding the "low" level of much of what appears on SCREEN-L raises other intriguing issues about the academic cultural "sphere" as it negotiates an electronic environment while attempting to deal with issues of "public" or "political" import; the mixing of voices from the ranks of the professoriat with those, I assume, of the student body, is just one of the features of the list that potentially (and perhaps happily) destabilizes the "authority" of academic discourse within its own limited political sphere. But at the same time, I don't wholly buy into the argument that "collegial" and "civil" are merely code words signifying the hegemony of a professionalized class of certified speakers. And is there a way that those of us on the list interested in maintaining a collegial tone can effectively "organize" such an endeavor without, in fact, simply resorting to elitist, self-defeating protocols of censorship?) So I have no real answers to these contradictory urges and questions, simply a hunch that others are feeling the push and pull of them too. As for now, my biggest pleasure in remaining on the list is the least "essential" or compellingly intellectual one for me -- I very much enjoy reading the requests for help on various film fronts, many of them dealing with topics and concerns of little particular interest to me, and seeing the many times remarkably informed and generous responses that emerge. The sense of community and appreciation for the depth and range of human resources available via the list is a real pleasure. Is it worth sorting through the junk mail to stay in touch with the community at large? Or will the junk mail begin to so dominate the board that the community as a whole will begin to percieve itself to be something less than it is or could be? James Schamus