The only other alternative I can see would be to limit membership -- but not limit what members might write.

The notion that there are "members" in some kind of formal fashion is inherently un-cypherpunk in my book and would most likely be rejected.

Having been "on" the net for over 15 years -- and with experience in both ends of the censorship/moderation problem (I'm probably the only Cypherpunks member to have had a book "banned in Boston"), I'm sorry that a handful of sociopaths managed to destroy this experiment in anarchy, but I suspect that this was inevitable.

In your 15 years on-line you should KNOW that it's an inevitable cycle inherent to anarchic forums like cypherpunks. But the notion that cypherpunks is dead and destroyed is silly. Cypherpunks will (and already are) reform and renew as is, I believe, necessary. Whether or not the name cypherpunks is used and embraced is irrelevant. Those interested in cryptography as a tool of personal privacy and freedom will inevitable congregate in the self-organizing fashion that "cypherpunks" have always recognized. The "human judgement" you are referring to is leadership. Leadership is not necessarily anathema to cypherpunks. Leadership is provided by those who try to post signal and ignore the noise. Those who continue to push the discussion forward. People inevitably tire of robust forums such as this. The sociopaths and the leaders come and go in waves. Let the forum mutate in whatever way it chooses. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman <mailto:omegam@cmq.com>|"When they kick out your front door, PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come? 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head, 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?" Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton" "Subject:"to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1980 ---------------------------------------------------------------------