Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <199701260712.XAA10405@toad.com>, on 01/25/97 at 11:03 PM, Toto <toto@sk.sympatico.ca> said: + I fail to see how any supposedly intelligent members of the +CypherPunks list can possibly be content to fall for the line, + "Bend over, baby. I'm only going to moderate you 'a little bit'." attila sez: no matter if one perceives the "need" for a moderator or not, I find it hard to accept --even to eliminate the grossly obscene attacks by a few members against other members. I wonder if we need a 'childish' excluder? I question how Sandy can accept the job as moderator, passing judgement on 100-300 messages per day. just trimming spam is questionable: what is spam? flames: what draws the line at flames: personal attacks? profanity? politically [in]correct speach? historical revisionism? and, I think cypherpunks is setting an atrocious example of our own narrow mindedness (creditable or not) when we sanction any filtering of what we see --is this not **exactly** what we accuse the controlled media of determining what is "fit to print?" unfortunately, we are demonstrating to our critics that a) net anarchy does not work b) cyberlibertarianism breeds anarchy c) we're loose cannons on the deck d) we are not civilized enough to warrant respect and this can go on and on and on... But, the minute we, as a group, start to tell other members of the group to 'clean up your act' we are violating the principal "ethic" which we claim: freedom. sure, we can claim we are entitled to total libertarianism, or anarchy; but there is a responsibility to create a workable, cooperative social order, if for no other reason than protecting us in the wilderness, or feeding us, or clothing us. anyone here wish to return to survivalist modes of a head of household 200 years ago? we can have pure communism, the LDS Brotherhood, the Shaker house, or even true anarchy where you may do anything you wish as long as it does not infringe on the rights or property of another. --catch22: just how do set the laws on limits, and how do you enforce the limits if you have voted to dissolve all 'government' and 'police?' when basic human ambition to better oneself is literally killed... good luck, Sandy; make sure you pull a sanity check everyday when you start and finish the onerous task! == "you may not be next, you may not be last, but you are too late to have been first. --attila -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBMusMbr04kQrCC2kFAQFXYgP/aK2vEs0skEaYNbwWiDXS+GcYKIRJ52/c y87akjVm/d1U+LDheHN0cvFxHiMCNRCIJKKa7hHNr3AYDXzJtehthP/pi+L5NPTD kYY58tUFy0p/t0hN4vze4i0wnxkymAVCnIVNkfGyAGwXytCxCmPUCHcV5ZzlYcI+ jrXv2nuBsos= =ZTbB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Attila T. Hun wrote:
I question how Sandy can accept the job as moderator, passing judgement on 100-300 messages per day. just trimming spam is questionable: what is spam? flames: what draws the line at flames:
It is whatever the moderator decides it is, depending upon h/is/er intelligence, understanding, mood, command of language, sobriety, etc., etc., etc.
and, I think cypherpunks is setting an atrocious example of our own narrow mindedness (creditable or not) when we sanction any filtering of what we see --is this not **exactly** what we accuse the controlled media of determining what is "fit to print?"
I am certain that there are members of the controlled media who are ROTL at the CypherPunks following in their footsteps, after having belittled the media for years for their sheep-mentality.
unfortunately, we are demonstrating to our critics that a) net anarchy does not work b) cyberlibertarianism breeds anarchy c) we're loose cannons on the deck d) we are not civilized enough to warrant respect
We are also demonstrating that all of the CypherPunk rhetoric about cryptography and freedom and... was just a lot of 'smoke' being blown by a bunch of pretenders who folded like a busted flush when they were 'told' that the man who owns the Machine will now subject them to the whims of whatever moderation he sees fit to impose on the list. Cryptography is about privacy. Apparently, however, the New List Order is of the opinion the Privacy Without Freedom is an obtainable goal.
--catch22: just how do set the laws on limits, and how do you enforce the limits if you have voted to dissolve all 'government' and 'police?'
It doesn't matter if the 'owner' of the list/Machine decides that s/he is now the government, with the power and/or right to make all decisions concerning the list.
good luck, Sandy; make sure you pull a sanity check everyday when you start and finish the onerous task!
I think that anyone who thinks that moderation is, or could ever be, anything other than a dance into the arms of the establishment, is already crazy. For the record, I don't think that either John or Sandy is crazy. I think that they have their own pre-established goals which others on the cypherpunks list are not privy to. Of course, this is my personal opinion, and I could be wrong. On the other hand, I could be 'right' like I am about everything else. Toto
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Toto wrote:
I think that anyone who thinks that moderation is, or could ever be, anything other than a dance into the arms of the establishment, is already crazy.
Apparently, Toto does not know very much about John or me or our relationships with the "Establishment." It is who are using a intellectually dishonest smokescreen of "freedom of speech" in order to disrupt and hamper the work of Cypherpunks who are dancing into the arms of the "Establishment."
For the record, I don't think that either John or Sandy is crazy. I think that they have their own pre-established goals which others on the cypherpunks list are not privy to.
I can't speak for John, but my goals have been stated too often and too completely for anyone not to know them. I want us all to have privacy. The Cypherpunks list was created to facilitate discussion--and ultimately action by those who were inclined and able to do something to further that goal via the use of cryptographic and other technologies. I believe that childish name-calling and personal attacks interferes with rational discourse and a spirit of common purpose and community. It is obvious to me that those who are waving the bloody flag of "censorship" are doing so for either of two reasons. The ones to whom I am the most sympathetic are those who simply do not have a clear and coherent understanding of rights in an anarchistic, volunteeristic society. The ones for whom I have no sympathy are those whose obvious goal is disruption of the Cypherpunks list and who are hiding behind a phoney interpretation of "free speech." I think both of these groups are intellectually dishonest in the extreme when it comes to telling others how this list should be run. I doubt any of them would permit the sort of disruptive behavior that goes on here to go unchallenged in salons they sponsor in their own homes or on Net lists that they themselves maintain. This is a voluntary list folks. We tried incivility and that did not work. Right now we are experimenting with reasoned discourse in an atmosphere of interpersonal respect and good will. If most list members like the change, it will continue. If not, then we can go back to the swill or perhaps try something else. In the meantime, get over it. If you really like flames and spam, show John and me how it really should be done. Start another list. Of course squating and claim jumping appeal to the lazy a lot more than homesteading. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sandy Sandfort wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Toto wrote:
I think that anyone who thinks that moderation is, or could ever be, anything other than a dance into the arms of the establishment, is already crazy.
Apparently, Toto does not know very much about John or me or our relationships with the "Establishment." It is who are using a intellectually dishonest smokescreen of "freedom of speech" in order to disrupt and hamper the work of Cypherpunks who are dancing into the arms of the "Establishment." [some snip] This is a voluntary list folks. We tried incivility and that did not work. Right now we are experimenting with reasoned discourse in an atmosphere of interpersonal respect and good will. If most list members like the change, it will continue. If not, then we can go back to the swill or perhaps try something else. In the meantime, get over it. If you really like flames and spam, show John and me how it really should be done. Start another list. Of course squating and claim jumping appeal to the lazy a lot more than homesteading.
Actually, it is a certifiable fact that the list subscribers can jump to the unmoderated list whenever they want to. It is also a certifiable fact that they (97% or so) have *not* done so. Because of these facts, I must conclude that either: 1. The subscribers have spoken by staying put, or, 2. The subscribers are so lazy and unaware of what's going on that they've just left things as is. Now, in my opinion, we've come to this: Some people here will hold the optimistic view of the bulk of the subscribers, and others will hold the pessimistic view (the bulk will presumably be in-between).
Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Apparently, Toto does not know very much about John or me or our relationships with the "Establishment."
Unfortunately, I know a little 'too much' about you and John and your relationships with the Establishment. But as long as I don't think about it at the dinner table, it doesn't affect my appetite.
I can't speak for John, but
You do so all of the time. It seems, rather, that John cannot speak for himself (or is too embarrassed to do so).
I think both of these groups are intellectually dishonest in the extreme when it comes to telling others how this list should be run.
No, Sandy, it is yourself and John who are 'telling' others how this list 'will' be run. You seem to be projecting your own motivations upon anyone who 'expresses' any unflattering opinion of the the censorship process you have instituted.
Of course squating and claim jumping appeal to the lazy a lot more than homesteading.
It must be nice, Sandy, having the power and control over the list that enables you to fling insults at others and then direct them to others only at your own whim and discretion. I guess that it is every list-dictator's dream to have the power to send a big FUCK YOU to one portion of the list, and send a portrait of themself as Mother Teresa to another portion of the list. Toto
participants (4)
-
Attila T. Hun -
Dale Thorn -
Sandy Sandfort -
Toto