Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Correcting is not an insult.
My post did not say it was, and did not suggest that you insulted Dr. DV K in your post.
He was not "silenced" in any way. Toto's proposition, therefore, does not make sense to me.
If being forcefully unsubscribed 'does not count' as an attempt to silence someone, then I suppose that neither does shipping them to a labor camp in Siberia.
Toto's prejudice (in the literal sense of the word, i.e., "to pre-judge") is showing.
If you are going to define the words you are using, then perhaps you should define them a little more specifically and back them up with specifics, rather than use them as out-of-context, vague declarations. Black's Law Dictionary defines 'prejudice' as: A forejudgment; A leaning towards one side of a cause for some reason other than a conviction of its justice. My post did not make a judgement as to the integrity of your (or anyone's) future moderation of this list, but expressed concern in relation to the attitudes toward moderation, based on the postings that have already taken place on this list. (You're toast, punk. / Your end is drawing near, asshole. etc., etc., etc.) Until I see some indication, other than vague assurances, that there is, in fact, some established rational behind the way the moderation process will be implemented, my concerns will remain. As far as figuring out, to everyone's satisfaction, just what constitues a 'flame', good luck, since everyone seems to have a different definition. Vague, unsubstatiated claims of someone's 'prejudice' might be considered by some to be a flame, or simply regarded as 'misjudgement' by others. Personally, I have no problem with someone telling me "You're full of shit.", rather than, "Sir, I believe you are in error." Others, having played less hockey, might have gentler sensibilities. DataETRetch seemed to feel terribly put-upon and personally attacked by various CypherPunks being so brazenly outspoken as to simply ask for some basis of verification for the outlandish claims they were making for their software. Their representative openly accused the CypherPunks of 'flaming' him for raising valid concerns about the technical nature of their software. There certainly seem to be more than a few people who have faith in your capacity to be a decent moderator, and I see no great reason to disagree with them, but it bothers me that you would take my statement of my concerns, and my reasons behind them, to be a personally biased pre-judgement of your integrity. I find it bothersome that some of the self-proclaimed 'upstanding' members of the CypherPunks list have responded to my attacks on their 'logic' with 'personal' attacks on, and insults toward, myself. At the same time, I would rather hear what they have to say, and be able to make my own personal judgement as to whether the problem is mine, or theirs, than to be 'protected' from them. I hope that your efforts towards decreasing the list's level of blatantly offensive crapola will not lead towards reducing the CypherPunks' tendencies to be outspokenly strong in their convictions. Cryptography is going to be an increasingly important issue in all areas of life in our electronically-global future, and without serious discussion of the issues that go hand-in-hand with its development, then the 'numbers' and the technology behind them have little real meaning. Toto