-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I've been quiet about the moderation experiment (and I never posted frequently anyway) but something Sandy wrote requires comment. In responding to Tim, Sandy points to the number of people on the censored list as evidence of the acceptance of the filtering. I am included in that group and object to my silence being interpreted as support. As Tim has pointed out, the bulk of the 2000 or so people who have remained on the filtered list have never been active participants on the list. As we have never heard from them, we don't even know that they were bothered by the flames and noise of the pre-filtered list. And, even if we did know, I don't think that there opinions should count as much as those of the more active participants to the list. A subscription to the list does not make one a member of the Cypherpunks "community". It is the opinion of the members of the community and not the observers of it which should matter. (Even within the community, some people are more a part of it than others, and nobody is more a part of it then Tim.) As for the rest of us on the filtered list who are active (or occasionally active) participants, our remaining on the list still can not be taken as support for censorship. Moderation of the list was announced as a one month experiment. I didn't change my subscription from the filtered to the unfiltered list because I expected this to end in a month and I was willing to participate in the experiment. You can't ask someone to try something for a month to see if they like it and call there use of it in that month evidence that they like it. As long as I am writing, I may as well write the rest of my thoughts. While there was a period between the announcement of moderation and the start of it during which people could (and did) comment on the change, the announcement was clear that there would be moderation. It was indeed a fait accompli. The moderated list should have been offered but not imposed. Then the experiment would have determined how many people thought the list was so bad that they would seek moderation, rather than determining how many thought moderation was so bad that they would seek to avoid it. Sandy, you said that you thought the list had improved since you began moderating. How could you think otherwise? When you send an article to the flames list its because you think the list would have been worse otherwise. I don't think the moderators opinion should be considered in determining if moderation is a good thing. I think there is a conflict of interest there. - -------------------- Scott V. McGuire <svmcguir@syr.edu> PGP key available at http://web.syr.edu/~svmcguir Key fingerprint = 86 B1 10 3F 4E 48 75 0E 96 9B 1E 52 8B B1 26 05 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBMvZ3lN7xoXfnt4lpAQGjbgQAs9qqrOZCgHeT19yh6LOS8rsXVAglssVI 2VLCiKb/X0Ny1+p3kzTiit42uykv5IhoCn+GdJF0X08zW02ymRf6JIv2sLksW2ln E+SZuUoLFk18emLIJMEVGNPW7cJEl7/a75IdETrU14RcdBN8F86bm5VK36kyNMIY kPfB825uWxU= =N3va -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----