~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Sun, 26 Jan 1997 paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote:

You need have no sympathy. Those members of this list see it as it is, a list that was supposed to be, in some small way, a "model" of an anarchistic discussion forum for the subject of cryptography,...

Nonsense. It was supposed to be a discussion of crypto and other technologies in support of privacy. The founders, Hughes, Gilmore, May and Daniel were focusing on that goal. The list structure was anarchistic (and still is to those who understand the concept of anarco-capitalism). Obviously Gilmore is not wedded to the idea of letting every fool use his bandwidth. In personal discussions as recently as yesterday, Hughes had no problem in supporting some mechanism to promote civility on the list. I don't think anything May has written would suggest he would have a problem with keeping things polite. His only argument seems to be over methodology. He thinks filtering is the answer; I don't. Reasonable minds may differ. Hugh Daniel has been instrumental in providing technical help with regard to moderation. Finally, the fact that the vast majority of list members have not seen fit to "vote with their feet" should suggest how most really feel about moderation. (By the way, if you don't like moderation, you would hate Eric Hughes' favored solution.)

...That was the intended direction of the list, it has rapidly disentigrated over recent months into a censored list where the elite post to the main list and anyone else is nearly always relegated to a seperate list for the crypto-untermenshcen.

Again, nonsense. The moderation experiment (moderation, not censorship) has been in effect for all of ONE WEEK. Where does Paul get this hysterical "recent months" stuff?

If you want to talk about intellectual dishonesty try the following:

Imagine if you will a list, the original purpose of which was to act as a free and open forum for discussion of cryptography and related issues...

Paul's argument is the essence of literal conservativism, "but I don't things to change!" Without change, though, there can be no progress. Moderation is a one-month experiment. There is no intellectual dishonesty in saying, "let's try something else for a while."

Now imagine that list falling into a state of content based censorship and censorship based on an unspoken but ever present class structure,...

"Unspoken but ever present class structure"? I wonder how Paul was able to divine this? Certainly it is unspoken, but that, of course, it because it does not exist anywhere but in Paul's fertile imagination.

It is a foregone conclusion that the upper class of list members will have no dispute over the censorship and therefore the change will be permenant,...

Great! I thought that hadn't been determined yet. What a relief. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~