From: jazz@hal.com (Jason Zions)
It's also common courtesy. You can have significant disagreements with a person, yet still honor their simple requests.
I owe no courtesy to someone who forfeits any respect in their atrocious misbehavior. This is as simple as the maxim, if you are a criminal your rights are diminished. If you mailbomb me, you have forfeited your `right to privacy'. If you email my postmaster a complaint about me before contacting me, you have forfeited your `right to privacy'. If you lie to me, you have forfeited your `right to privacy'. If you fail to adequately respond to my personal accusations of impropriety or criminality, especially meeting them with evasion or stonewalling, you have forfeited your `right to privacy'. If you have ever sent me mail as a Snake of Medusa or a Tentacle of a Monster, you have forfeited your `right to privacy' -- under ALL your pseudonyms and identities. If you ridiculously condone and endorse any such reprehensible behaviors under such patent idiocy as `respecting copyright' or `common courtesy', you have forfeited your `right to privacy'. If you have done any of the above to *anyone*, you have forfeited your `right to privacy' with respect to EVERYONE in your society! I also think you have forfeited your right to speak in that society as well -- maybe only temporarly -- but in situations where these kinds of outrageous behaviors are condoned by a corrupt moderator, no recourse except leaving or starting a new list is possible. In particularly obnoxious cases of criminal abuse, I will attempt to shame you into repentance by ridiculing you in front of people who appear to be your friends and community (presuming you actually have any), if all other measures have failed. (Even this may be ineffective, but if you have no shame, you have no humanity.) That is the Detweiler Code of Cyberspatial Ethics and Privacy. If it is incompatible with the Cypherpunk Code of Chivalry, my heartfelt condolences go out to you. Perhaps you would like to elucidate me as to which of the above practices require my RESPECT. As I was saying, psychopunks have elevated their religion of `privacy' and `pseudospoofing' to perverse extremes. ``The cypherpunk agenda is becoming indistinguishable from raw criminality.'' May you choke on your own poisons. Already, you wallow and drown in them and defile the naive, trusting, honest, and innocent daily on your list. Frankly, I can barely stand to be in the same Cyberspace with you. The `psychopunk core' of the cypherpunks is nothing but a fanatic, brainwashed religious cult. No wonder you guys identify with David Koresh. I assure you, future Cyberspace will not be big enough for the both of us. Go ahead, CENSOR me! For the crime of writing `FLAMEBAIT' or, equivalently, YELLING THE TRUTH. What depraved hypocrisy, that some psychopunks attempt to CENSOR ME indirectly by mailing my postmaster (who could care less about your sniveling whinings). You guys really do have *some* ethics, don't you? ``Don't ever DIRECTLY CENSOR ANYTHING!'' ``NEVER GET CAUGHT or be PERSONALLY ACCOUNTABLE or RESPONSIBLE for ANYTHING!''