Re: Dr. Vulis is not on cypherpunks any more
Well put! I tired a long time ago of Dr. Vulis and several others on this list. Rather than bitch about it or resort to the same big brother gestapo-censor bullshit we profess to abhor I simply utilized the extensive filtering capability of Eudora.
I don't need "big brother" or big "cypherpunk" censoring my mail for me. We have become what we fear the most. How prophetic and pathetic.
Absolutely, John, if you, and those who support your actions, claim to be libertarians you need to take a good hard look at what you have done. This is a distinctly "big cypherpunkish" move and really cannot be condoned even bearing in mind the inane and wearisome behaviour of Dr. Vulis. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"
paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote:
John, if you, and those who support your actions, claim to be libertarians you need to take a good hard look at what you have done.
John owns toad.com. John can do what he wants to with it. End of story.
This is a distinctly "big cypherpunkish" move
Hogwash. "Big cypherpunkish". Snort. Like exclusion from the cp list has some actual societal import.
and really cannot be condoned
I hereby condone it. ______c_________________________________________________________________ Mike M Nally * IBM % Tivoli * Austin TX * How quickly we forget that mailto:m5@tivoli.com mailto:m101@io.com * "deer processing" and "data http://www.io.com/~m101/ * processing" are different!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Sun, 3 Nov 1996 paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote:
John, if you, and those who support your actions, claim to be libertarians you need to take a good hard look at what you have done.
The core basis of libertarianism, the non-aggression principle, is usually expressed something like this: "No one has the right to initiate force for fraud against another." Perhaps Paul would be so kind as to tell us how he believes John has violated this standard. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sandy Sandfort wrote:
C'punks, On Sun, 3 Nov 1996 paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote:
John, if you, and those who support your actions, claim to be libertarians you need to take a good hard look at what you have done.
The core basis of libertarianism, the non-aggression principle, is usually expressed something like this:
"No one has the right to initiate force for fraud against another."
Perhaps Paul would be so kind as to tell us how he believes John has violated this standard.
Unsubscribed him by force? - Igor.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Tue, 5 Nov 1996 ichudov@algebra.com wrote:
Sandy Sandfort wrote:
The core basis of libertarianism, the non-aggression principle, is usually expressed something like this:
"No one has the right to initiate force for fraud against another."
Perhaps Paul would be so kind as to tell us how he believes John has violated this standard.
Unsubscribed him by force?
Obviously not, unless one wishes to completely distort the meaning of the word. The /reducto ad absurdum/ implied by Igor's question would say that when a volunteer stopped volunteering his services, he was initiating force against his former beneficiaries. S a n d y "English, it's not just for school anymore." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote:
Well put! I tired a long time ago of Dr. Vulis and several others on this list. Rather than bitch about it or resort to the same big brother gestapo-censor bullshit we profess to abhor I simply utilized the extensive filtering capability of Eudora.
I don't need "big brother" or big "cypherpunk" censoring my mail for me. We have become what we fear the most. How prophetic and pathetic.
John, if you, and those who support your actions, claim to be libertarians you need to take a good hard look at what you have done.
This is a distinctly "big cypherpunkish" move and really cannot be condoned even bearing in mind the inane and wearisome behaviour of Dr. Vulis.
I guess libertarian philosophy permits operating a private mailing list and imposing whatever rules the host deems necessary to invent. The question is, can this ist be called a free medium for exchange of ideas, or not. My answer is no. Moderated forums might create some utility (by saving the time of their participants, for example), but they should identify themselves as such. - Igor.
On Sun, 3 Nov 1996 13:15:24 +0000, paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote:
John, if you, and those who support your actions, claim to be libertarians you need to take a good hard look at what you have done.
I'm in the "those who support" category. I don't give a damn whether Dimitri is on the list or not, I can filter if I want to, but since John's paying for it, he can kick people off, moderate it, forge and edit posts, or whatever he wants. Digital signatures can prevent (or at least detect) some of this (but he could strip the signatures, of course) and I imagine the list wouldn't last long (would move elsewhere) if he did this, but it would not be "anti-libertarian" (dishonest, maybe). The anti-libertarian side is that of those list-members who think they have some sort of right to use John's equipment as they please, for free, and complain when he disagrees. Well, tough. He's right and you're wrong. If you don't like the way John runs the list, there's a very simple solution: set up your own list, using _your_ computer, and run it the way you think it should be run. It sounds like a lot of the people on this list would prefer your way (the same people, presumably, who would like to borrow your car without asking, or spend a couple of months holidaying in your house...)
This is a distinctly "big cypherpunkish" move and really cannot be condoned even bearing in mind the inane and wearisome behaviour of Dr. Vulis.
Nonsense. John Gilmore is not censoring anyone's mail. He can't possibly censor your mail (unless he runs your ISP...but then you can always move to another ISP). You're free to correspond with Dimitri to your hearts content, and John has nothing to say about it...unless you try to make him pay for it. [If you think differently, please let me know. I'll be quite happy to tell my ISP to send my bills to you! :-)] -- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reality is bad enough, why should I tell the truth? -- Patrick Sky
participants (5)
-
ichudov＠algebra.com -
Mike McNally -
Paul Foley -
paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk -
Sandy Sandfort