[this goes to cypherpunks@toad.com and freedom-knights@jetcafe.org. I am not reading f-k, but I am interested in Dave Hayes's opinion.]
What weight can my opinion possibly have? This list is apparently owned by a Mr. John Gilmore. If he's being censorous, that's bad, but it is apparently within his means to execute said censorship.
Many members of cypherpunks list are right when they oppose the forced unsubscription of Dimitri Vulis from this list. The sorry state of this list is not the result of his flames alone, there is a large number of people who discuss things of no cryptographic relevance.
Not to speak for the cypherpunks (we all know their reputation) but I should think the cypherpunks are savvy enough to know the subjectivity of the term "on-topic".
I propose the following: 1) The block on Dimitri Vulis's subscriptions should be removed 2) We should not impose any limitations on anyone's speech except 3) 3) Dimitri and everyone else should put prefix "[FLAME]" into all Subject: header fields of their flame-related messages.
Gee. What a great idea.
This solution will allow anyone with a clue to use appropriate filtering and improve the signal-noise ratio, and at the same time will not in any way limit anyone's freedom of speech.
Improving signal to noise is a laughable goal at a social event of more than 100 people, why do people insist upon trying it on the net? ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors and miss