Re: FW: Dr. Vulis is not on cypherpunks any more
At 03:08 PM 11/3/96 -0800, blanc <blancw@cnw.com> wrote:
Vulis did everything to set himself up for what he got, did he not.
Indeed - my hunch is that this is the result that Vulis was determined to get, and would have done whatever was necessary to bring it about. Now he can cry that he is the "victim" of evil censorship, and he can wear the white hat of virtue - notwithstanding that he consciously sought to be censored, and has himself contributed mightily towards the (temporary) destruction of an otherwise useful list. Now he can leave the list with his "virtue" and his pride intact; something he could not have done had he simply unsubscribed himself. There are plenty of people who would have (and will) help him if he manages to come up with something on-topic to say. But, short-term, he's gotten what he was looking for (a chance to play victim) and we get a list with less crap on it. Perhaps we should have a moment of silence for Dmitri Vulis, sympathetic victim, target of dastardly censors, paragon of virtue and righteousness. I'll go ahead and have mine now. Given that John Gilmore is the source of the oft-repeated "The net sees censorship as damage and routes around it" quote, it strikes me as unlikely that he took the steps he did without some reflection on their meaning, consequences, and chances of success. -- Greg Broiles | "We pretend to be their friends, gbroiles@netbox.com | but they fuck with our heads." http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | |
Greg Broiles wrote:
At 03:08 PM 11/3/96 -0800, blanc <blancw@cnw.com> wrote:
Vulis did everything to set himself up for what he got, did he not.
Am I missing something, or do some people just not get it? Nobody cares about the "Doctor" other than his personal friends, which cypherpunks as a list is not. What *does* matter is what this issue did to everyone else. Remember the old adage, regurgitated frequently by USA Today, L.A. Times, etc.? "x number of people are willing to give up some of their freedoms to stop crime" ad nauseam, even though it says further on in the paragraph that "it probably won't do any good anyway". Yes, they actually print that crap. So now cypherpunks is in the same boat. Enacting censorship that doesn't accomplish the stated purpose. So if it doesn't accomplish the stated purpose, and Doctor Vulis can post anyway, what was the *real* reason, or to look at it another way, what's the next thing to be enacted to further tighten the screws on the "Doctor", and add more limits to freedom?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
Am I missing something, or do some people just not get it?
Yes, Dale is missing something, not the other way around. (a) What John did was NOT censorship. Dale's sloppy choice of language to the contrary notwithstanding. (b) Nobody on this list gave up any freedom. And we are still the beneficiaries of John's largesse, not his victims. (c) Freedom has been defended not limited. If Dimitri or even a majority of Cypherpunks could overrule Johns control of his own resources, then there would have been a loss of freedom with dangerous implications for us all. Would Dale be so tolerant if Dimitri were loudly using abusive language towards Dale's mother and others in her own livingroom? Would he accuse her of censorship if she asked Dimitri to leave? What would he say if she kicked Dimitri out? Enquiring minds want to know. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sandy Sandfort wrote:
(b) Nobody on this list gave up any freedom. And we are still the beneficiaries of John's largesse, not his victims.
So, you say that I still have the freedom to behave as Vulis did? I think not.
(c) Freedom has been defended not limited. If Dimitri or even a majority of Cypherpunks could overrule Johns control of his own resources, then there would have been a loss of freedom with dangerous implications for us all.
No one is suggesting to overrule him. It is an attempt to persuade him. Your point is lost. - Igor.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Tue, 5 Nov 1996 ichudov@algebra.com wrote:
Sandy Sandfort wrote:
(b) Nobody on this list gave up any freedom. And we are still the beneficiaries of John's largesse, not his victims.
So, you say that I still have the freedom to behave as Vulis did?
I think not.
Of course Igor does. As does Dimitri. And John has the right to kick him off if he so desires. What igor does not have--and never did have--was a right to arbitrarily use John's resources contrary to John's wishes.
(c) Freedom has been defended not limited. If Dimitri or even a majority of Cypherpunks could overrule Johns control of his own resources, then there would have been a loss of freedom with dangerous implications for us all.
No one is suggesting to overrule him. It is an attempt to persuade him. Your point is lost.
Perhaps Igor did not understand my point, or I did not make myself clear enough. I was illustrating the only way someone's freedom could be lost given the current controversy. Ironically, giving Dimitri the boot has benefited the Cypherpunk list in at least two ways. It has vastly lowered the level of ugly flames and personal attacks. It has also provided us with a wonderful opportunity to explore such concepts as censorship, freedom, rights and property. I much prefer it when this list is a forum for ideas rather than a outlet for spoiled tantrums by the emotionally challenged. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sandy Sandfort wrote:
On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
Am I missing something, or do some people just not get it?
Yes, Dale is missing something, not the other way around.[snip] Would Dale be so tolerant if Dimitri were loudly using abusive language towards Dale's mother and others in her own livingroom? Would he accuse her of censorship if she asked Dimitri to leave? What would he say if she kicked Dimitri out? Enquiring minds want to know.
A more practical and realistic example might be if Dale was living in an apartment, and Dale's mother walked out to the garage to get into her car, and the next-door neighbor started calling her the most vile and foul things (but no direct threats of harm or whatever), and Dale called the Police, and the Police said "there's absolutely nothing we can do, and further, if you should happen to get into a scuffle with the neighbor defending your poor old mother, even if the neighbor starts the fight, we will arrest you and take you to jail", ad nauseam. When asked directly what the male police officers would do if someone tried that on their mother or wife, they would be evasive and non-committal, because, as you see, they have to defend themselves first before they can defend you, the paying client. This is far more realistic than your example, since the immediate neighborhoods where these situations develop are a better model for cypherpunks than the inside of one individual's home. Other models I can think of might be a free-speech forum such as a radio talk show, with rather strict guidelines due to the FCC or the host station, or (less likely) a continuous, never-ending party hosted at an individual's home, where that individual can exercise total autocracy in throwing someone out. I could probably do better with this, or even leave it alone, if the arguments were more rational and less of "I feel this is wrong....it just feels wrong", etc. Your questions above didn't really say anything I can respond to better than this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
A more practical and realistic example might be if Dale was living in an apartment, and Dale's mother walked out to the garage to get into her car, and the next-door neighbor started calling her the most vile and foul things...
This is far more realistic than your example, since the immediate neighborhoods where these situations develop are a better model for cypherpunks than the inside of one individual's home...
I disagree. This IS inside someone's home--both metaphorically and in reality. John has graciously provided us with a venue for our never-ending Cypherpunk salon. I think my example of an inappropriate guest in Dale's mom's livingroom is exactly on point. Just for the record, I would appreciate it if Dale would address my hypothetical, just in case other readers find it as cogent as do I. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sandy Sandfort wrote:
On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
A more practical and realistic example might be if Dale was living in an apartment, and Dale's mother walked out to the garage to get into her car, and the next-door neighbor started calling her the most vile and foul things... This is far more realistic than your example, since the immediate neighborhoods where these situations develop are a better model for cypherpunks than the inside of one individual's home...
I disagree. This IS inside someone's home--both metaphorically and in reality. John has graciously provided us with a venue for our never-ending Cypherpunk salon. I think my example of an inappropriate guest in Dale's mom's livingroom is exactly on point. Just for the record, I would appreciate it if Dale would address my hypothetical, just in case other readers find it as cogent as do I.
My computer and my access to cypherpunks is not inside of anyone's home. One could argue that all speech originates and/or is controlled anywhere, which is not the point here. Here, John has opened up whatever computer hardware for an essentially public forum (I could detail the process of subscribing for you in intimate detail and with all of its shades of meaning to demonstrate that it is perceived by a very large segment of the subscribers as public), and has taken action to oust someone. Now, don't you think it odd that if people really perceived this forum to be "really private", that they would so strongly object to this ousting, particularly of the person in question, who is not even liked by these objectors? You can argue until doomsday the "privacy of home" issue, but I'd suggest to you that a possible way to settle this in the minds of that large segment of participants who disagree with you would be for John to make it more visibly clear on this forum that the forum is his private child, and he can do whatever he darn well pleases with it. Of course, what you're suggesting (subtly) is that one of the things John can darn well do is keep silent, and continue to do as he pleases, which makes me wonder about you. If you really agree with the ousting, I don't understand why you're arguing so hard for the "private home" issue; would you want to see a world someday where all Internet communications are "controlled" by "private" individuals at "home"? If you think about that for awhile, you'll at least understand what I'm getting at.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
My computer and my access to cypherpunks is not inside of anyone's home.
Dale is wrong. All access to Cypherpunks is via toad.com which sits in John Gilmore's home. (The basement office to be exact.)
Here, John has opened up whatever computer hardware for an essentially public forum...that it is perceived by a very large segment of the subscribers as public...
And here John has chosen to limit said forum. It is irrelevant how many subscribers perceive the list as public. It is private. Their misperception is in no way binding on John.
Now, don't you think it odd that if people really perceived this forum to be "really private", that they would so strongly object to this ousting, particularly of the person in question, who is not even liked by these objectors?
a) "Against stupidity, the gods themselve, contend in vain." Some folks just don't have a clue. Just because they don't understand the nature of John's contribution, does not stop them from yammering. b) There are those who do understand the private nature of the list, but think that John has made a mistake. They may certainly try to convince him of the error of his ways without assuming the list is public.
You can argue until doomsday the "privacy of home" issue,...
Since it is correct and unasailable, I believe I will.
If you really agree with the ousting, I don't understand why you're arguing so hard for the "private home" issue; would you want to see a world someday where all Internet communications are "controlled" by "private" individuals at "home"?
Yes. That's the way it is now, and I think it works very well. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sandy Sandfort wrote:
On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
My computer and my access to cypherpunks is not inside of anyone's home.
Dale is wrong. All access to Cypherpunks is via toad.com which sits in John Gilmore's home. (The basement office to be exact.)
Wrongo, Mr./Mrs. Argumentum ad Nauseam. My computer is in fact in MY home, and my access is SOLELY through GTE.
Here, John has opened up whatever computer hardware for an essentially public forum...that it is perceived by a very large segment of the subscribers as public...
And here John has chosen to limit said forum. It is irrelevant how many subscribers perceive the list as public. It is private. Their misperception is in no way binding on John.
Perception is everything. And I never made a comment about "binding" anything. Therefore, there is no misunderstanding.
Now, don't you think it odd that if people really perceived this forum to be "really private", that they would so strongly object to this ousting, particularly of the person in question, who is not even liked by these objectors?
a) "Against stupidity, the gods themselve, contend in vain." Some folks just don't have a clue. Just because they don't understand the nature of John's contribution, does not stop them from yammering.
And the people who agree with you are the only intelligent/clueful people on this list? Your contention is acknowledged and rejected.
b) There are those who do understand the private nature of the list, but think that John has made a mistake. They may certainly try to convince him of the error of his ways without assuming the list is public.
The only fact you've shown to demonstrate that it's private is that John can manage it "anyway he wants", and/or shut it down at will. Well, the owners of Denny's can shut their places down whenever they want to too. Matter of fact, the whole government can resign tomorrow and tell you to do it yourself. Imagine what would happen in the L.A. metro area if the truck drivers who bring in food decided they didn't want to do so next week....
You can argue until doomsday the "privacy of home" issue,...
Since it is correct and unasailable, I believe I will.
[snore]
If you really agree with the ousting, I don't understand why you're arguing so hard for the "private home" issue; would you want to see a world someday where all Internet communications are "controlled" by "private" individuals at "home"?
Yes. That's the way it is now, and I think it works very well.
Works for you. Which is all you care about.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, Dale seems to be getting over-wrought so I'll just hit the main points. On Wed, 6 Nov 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
Wrongo, Mr./Mrs. Argumentum ad Nauseam. My computer is in fact in MY home, and my access is SOLELY through GTE.
But access to Cypherpunks, the original issue in contention, must pass through John's house. Every string has two ends.
The only fact you've shown to demonstrate that it's private is that John can manage it "anyway he wants", and/or shut it down at will.
By George, I think he's got it! Yes, the machine privately owned by John sits in John's private home, uses electricity and net connection paid for by John. (other then than, I guess I havenpt made any other demonstration that it's private. Duh.)
Well, the owners of Denny's can shut their places down whenever they want to too.
Yup. And Dale's point is...?
Matter of fact, the whole government can resign tomorrow and tell you to do it yourself.
My wet dream.
Imagine what would happen in the L.A. metro area if the truck drivers who bring in food decided they didn't want to do so next week....
That would be great! We could all make a killing taking their place! And Dale's point is...? S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Amazing how many people on this list are inconsistent in taking their medications. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred Member JPFO. "America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization" On Wed, 6 Nov 1996, Dale Thorn wrote: [elided]
Yes. That's the way it is now, and I think it works very well.
Works for you. Which is all you care about.
On Wed, 06 Nov 1996 21:43:51 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Dale is wrong. All access to Cypherpunks is via toad.com which sits in John Gilmore's home. (The basement office to be exact.)
Wrongo, Mr./Mrs. Argumentum ad Nauseam. My computer is in fact in MY home, and my access is SOLELY through GTE. You only send mail to/receive mail from GTE? How, then, are you reading this, or sending the message to which I'm replying? What a revelation! It's going through toad.com! *gasp*
And here John has chosen to limit said forum. It is irrelevant how many subscribers perceive the list as public. It is private. Their misperception is in no way binding on John.
Perception is everything. And I never made a comment about "binding" anything. Therefore, there is no misunderstanding. Yes there is. I don't understand what you're saying. Sandy wasn't quoting you ("binding") -- he said your (mis)perception that the list is public doesn't affect what John can or cannot do with his privately owned computer. Try this at home: send email addressed to majordomo@toad.com with the body "who cypherpunks". When you get a reply, save it in a file. OK, you now have a list of who's subscribed to this list on your computer. Is it your contention that you should not be allowed to edit or delete this list? If you reply in the negative, why do you think that John Gilmore shouldn't be allowed to edit his copy of this list?
Some folks just don't have a clue. Just because they don't understand the nature of John's contribution, does not stop them from yammering.
And the people who agree with you are the only intelligent/clueful people on this list? Obviously. Well, People can be clueful about different things, of course. On this particular subject I can't see how you can reconcile a belief in private property rights with your viewpoint. So, are you a communitarian or an idiot? :-) Your contention is acknowledged and rejected. Your rejection is acknowledged and rejected :-) Facts are facts. Whether you choose to accept them is irrelevant. Try "rejecting" gravity for a while. The only fact you've shown to demonstrate that it's private is that John can manage it "anyway he wants", and/or shut it down at will. Yes! The only fact necessary is that the equipment on which it's run is private. Well, the owners of Denny's can shut their places down whenever they want to too. Yes...another example of "private." Matter of fact, the whole government can resign tomorrow and tell you to do it yourself. Most(?) people on this list would think they'd died and gone to heaven. Imagine what would happen in the L.A. metro area if the truck drivers who bring in food decided they didn't want to do so next week.... Are you saying they can't? Who prevents these truck drivers from quitting, and what happens to those who try? What do you think would happen?
You can argue until doomsday the "privacy of home" issue,...
Since it is correct and unasailable, I believe I will.
Dale, apparently, doesn't think his home is private. I think it more likely that Dale is simply being a hypocrite, though. I'm sure he would maintain that his home is private as soon as the homeless people under the bridge down the street decide to move in.
If you really agree with the ousting, I don't understand why you're arguing so hard for the "private home" issue; would you want to see a world someday where all Internet communications are "controlled" by "private" individuals at "home"?
Would you really want to see a world where this is *not* the case? -- Paul Foley <mycroft@actrix.gen.nz> --- PGPmail preferred PGP key ID 0x1CA3386D available from keyservers fingerprint = 4A 76 83 D8 99 BC ED 33 C5 02 81 C9 BF 7A 91 E8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Heavy, adj.: Seduced by the chocolate side of the force.
Paul Foley wrote:
On Wed, 06 Nov 1996 21:43:51 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: Sandy Sandfort wrote:
[snippo]
Try this at home: send email addressed to majordomo@toad.com with the body "who cypherpunks". When you get a reply, save it in a file. OK, you now have a list of who's subscribed to this list on your computer. Is it your contention that you should not be allowed to edit or delete this list? If you reply in the negative, why do you think that John Gilmore shouldn't be allowed to edit his copy of this list?
[mucho snippo] It amazes me how erstwhile "intelligent" folks will waste so much time stating the obvious, i.e., "John owns the list, etc.". I doubt whether they'd make very good programmers, with so much time on their hands and so little imagination. BTW, I did a "who cypherpunks" on Oct 12, and another on Nov 4. There were 1361 on the list on Oct 12, and 1353 on Oct 4 (net loss of 8). There were 211 new nyms, and 219 dropped off. If enough of these people who come and go stay just long enough to learn something, and possibly give up some of their own info at the same time, that could translate to a lot of influence on the part of the list "owner". Anytime *anyone* accumulates a disproportionate share of power, money, or influence in a "free" society, they should be watched very closely. In fact, you folks who have so much time on your hands could help with that... BTW #2: I didn't do the stats manually, I used utilities made for the purpose.
Sigh... Yes Cypherpunks is indeed a private list... yes John is entitled to refuse to have a guest in his virtual home, and yet some denizens of this list cant seem to accept that and scream and rant and rave about it.. What dont they understand about the word no? and WHY cant these holier than thou "anti-censorship" groupies simply accept that John has made a choice, it is his choice to make, and unless I miss my guess about John (having known him for a few years now) there probably isnt any duress or coercion that would have the least effect on his choice in fact it would in the case of John reinforce his intransigent nature. Perhaps if matters and the list are given a chance to quiet feelings may change, further harassment of John on this WONT help. As has been stated MANY times before. if you dont like this forum go buy your own! grumpily a cypherpunk p.s. does anyone get it yet... we are ALL guests, John does have the right to uninvite someone.
participants (7)
-
cypherpunks＠count04.mry.scruznet.com -
Dale Thorn -
Greg Broiles -
ichudov＠algebra.com -
Lucky Green -
Paul Foley -
Sandy Sandfort