On Wed, 27 Dec 1995, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
so far the "authorities" are those who have been on a the list a long time. (it is still an informal system however). this is a reasonable system. but I object to the way that people such as PM argue in one message that "there is no such thing as the cypherpunks" but then endlessly determine themselves what is appropriate for the list. doesn't anyone see the inconsistency-at-best-and-hypocrisy-at-worst of this?
No, what's appropriate is what's in the charter. Stuff related to cryptography and its offshoots. Conspiracy du-jour is totally unrelated, and Perry is right, it doesn't belong. I don't see why that's so hard to understand. Perry isn't acting as a list owner, but the subconscious reminder to "stick closer to the charter". He's a bit billious, but it helps to cut out the drivel, so I don't mind so much. They (I) object when something is labelled as cypherpunk because many of the people on this list have completely opposite views on different topics. There is no gestault. A mailing list does not make a common personality. ____________________________________________________________________________ Doug Hughes Engineering Network Services System/Net Admin Auburn University doug@eng.auburn.edu Pro is to Con as progress is to congress