Kevin L Prigge wrote:

paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk said:

...

...

I think both of these groups are intellectually dishonest in the extreme when it comes to telling others how this list should be run. I doubt any of them would permit the sort of disruptive behavior that goes on here to go unchallenged in salons they sponsor in their own homes or on Net lists that they themselves maintain.

If you want to talk about intellectual dishonesty try the following:

Imagine if you will a list, the original purpose of which was to act as a free and open forum for discussion of cryptography and related issues. A list which proudly proclaims in its "welcome to the list" message:

We do not seek to prevent other people from speaking about their experiences or their opinions.

Now imagine that list falling into a state of content based censorship and censorship based on an unspoken but ever present class structure, then ask yourself which list you know that most closely matches this description, it`s a pretty revealing exercise.

The exercise reveals to me that only by ignoring the first paragraph of your example, the part that reads "Imagine if you will a list, the original purpose of which was to act as a free and open forum for discussion of cryptography and related issues." can you make a claim of content based censorship. The purpose of this list was

Then why discussion of machine guns should be allowed here? igor