Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
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).
Dale Thorn wrote:
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).
In case of 2, they are probably not worthy of your help. - Igor.
cypherpunks-errors@toad.com writes:
Dale Thorn wrote:
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).
In case of 2, they are probably not worthy of your help.
I wholeheartedly agree. By now everyone's painfully aware that there are 3 mailing lists. It's not my responsibily (or Dale's) to encourage cypherpunks subscribers to do what I think is best for them - resubscribe to cypherpunks-unedited. Folks who choose to let Sandy choose what they read and don't read should be free to do that. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
participants (3)
-
Dale Thorn
-
dlv@bwalk.dm.com
-
ichudov@algebra.com