On Mon, 04 Nov 1996 07:20:15 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote:

...

...

I'm quite upset about this. Up to now I was able to tell people that "there is at least one mailing list on the net that functions in a completely open manner". No more.

...

This has been taken far too seriously. Cypherpunks is a *PRIVATE* list. There is no obligation to accept anyone.

Isn't this the same argument used by the state whenever they want to differentiate between your "rights" and your "privileges"? Can they reject one of your privileges whenever they want to, at their discretion? No. So if c-punks is really "private", how does it decide (arbitrarily?) who to include and who to reject?

It's a big difference. Can you set up your own mailing list? Yes. Can you go elsewhere? Yes. Can Mr. Vulis send email directly to list-members anyway? Yes. Can you do the same if the government runs it? No. Can you set up your own list/printing press* if the state won't publish your ideas? No. One could apply a similar rationale to socialism - after all, it may seem like an extension of "love your neighbor" to take care of their needs, which is certainly a laudable goal. That's not the problem. The problem is when it becomes mandated *with no alternatives*. # Chris Adams <adamsc@io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp # <cadams@acucobol.com> | send mail with subject "send PGPKEY" "That's our advantage at Microsoft; we set the standards and we can change them." --- Karen Hargrove, Microsoft (quoted in the Feb 1993 Unix Review editorial)