On Sat, 23 Feb 2002, Eugene Leitl wrote:

Let's recapitulate. We have a downunder nutcase who's using this public resource for private dumping ground, while posting *a lot* (including profanity and casual death threats, iirc) and constantly changing his email address, thus avoiding filtering.

I don't propose the list policy to be changed, this particular forum should be unmoderated. However, complaining to Matt's ISP (whose terms he's clearly in violation with) and some grassroot pressure (if there are 100 people on his list willing to send back each of his messages 10x, he's dealing with a 1000x amplification factor on each and single of his messages) seems to be in order.

Does anyone see anything wrong with this plan?

Yes, a major problem. Why are you to decide what is or is not relevant to the other list members? Why is it that instead of managing your own mailbox, and in the process promoting general peace (which you seem to be promoting by homogenizing the discussion in this forum), instead you feel it is better than your belief of what is or isn't relevant should be applied to all of us? It is clear you are not willing to allow us to reciprocate and decide what goes in your mailbox? So much for CACL individualism... The CACL Cypherpunk Contengent (CACL-CC ?) are a funny bunch. They promote freedom of speech and action based around individual choice. Yet when put in a position of conflict they use the same old 'force it all into one mold' strategies that they (supposedly) rail against. Why is it this contengent is the first to call for banning and filtering en masse? How odd. -- ____________________________________________________________________ When I die, I would like to be born again as me. Hugh Hefner ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.org www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------