At 09:40 AM 10/3/97 -0700, Alan wrote:
At 10:45 AM 10/2/97 EDT, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
Amazingly, C2Net doesn't like to see its product publicly slandered by reptiles like Vulis. If Vulis' opinion were based on anything other than personal ill will - ie, if he had ever actually downloaded and examined Stronghold and found any problems with it - he would have a leg to stand on. As it is, his allegations are completely unfounded.
If this were true, then C2Net would encourage me to publicly present whatever "evidence" I have so they'd be able to refute it. This is not what they asked me to do.
But it is what you *SHOULD* do. If you have evidence, then present it. If not, then you are just blowing smoke and FUD.
While it is true that Dmitri is a proven liar in the grand tradtion of the Soviet Union (shout a lie long enough and loud enough and eventually some people will start to believe it), and a pathological homophobic bigot (who secretly enjoys sucking cock but wears womens clothing to disguise himself), he was absolutely right in decrying the moderation experiment that was thrown at the list earlier. Sandy did drop his C2 rantings from both moderated and flames lists, because he considered them libelous. That's a line of bullshit -- it wasn't for him to decide libel or not. It's for a jury to decide. Sandy wouldn't have been held responsible in either case because he could have hidden behind the "ISP protection" clause of the CDA. As a moderator who was tasked with spreading the bullshit in one of two places, he simply could have thrown it to either of the lists and claimed it was his duty as moderator to put it out. Of course, by that time Dmitri had so little reputation capital that Gilmore patched Majordomo so it wouldn't even respect a subscription request for him. Dmitri's allegations shouldn't even have gone to the flames list -- they should have gone to the moderated list. If Stronghold has a weakness, or even a perceived weakness, it's crypto relevant. But, when Dmitri writes anything, he's got to attach a "cocksucker this" or "molester that", which makes everything he writes libelous. So, even if he had proof that Lying Fuck Freeh were a axe-murderer, he'd fuck it up and call him "Louis Freeh (cocksucker)", which would continue to throw his credibility down the toilet. Ultimately, Dmitri's allegations of weaknesses in Stronghold, true or not, are totally irrelevant. Without mathematical proof of a weakness, he simply cannot be believed to ever be telling the truth. So, if C2 said to him in private e-mail, "if you call Sameer a cocksucker one more time, we'll slap a libel suit across your emigrant ass, take back your green card, deport you and tell Russia that you called Yeltsin a cocksucker," well, I can understand why he shut up. Actually, I don't think Dmitri knows of any real weaknesses. As I recall, I think he made up some fictitious homosexual connection between Sameer and a law-enforcement agent and suggested that there was a "back door" in Stronghold (pun intended.) Of course, I didn't archive any of his spew from back then. Nobody did, he raved so long and loud at the moderation and Gilmore and everybody that it was all my delete key could do to keep up with his shit. So, don't hold your breath waiting for a repost of previous lies from our dear Kook of the Fucking Century. He might get caught, so he's moved on to new lies now. Cannonymous
This is the second chunk of the same. Tim May described C2net's legal threats: ]Message-Id: <v03007809af21b7779b24@[207.167.93.63]> ]In-Reply-To: <19970208043115.2364.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> ]Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 21:46:10 -0800 ]To: Against Moderation <antimod@nym.alias.net>, cypherpunks@toad.com ]From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> ]Subject: Re: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation ]Cc: hugh@toad.com ] ]At 4:31 AM +0000 2/8/97, Against Moderation wrote: ]>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- ]> ]>Well, folks, tonight I have witnessed the frightening dangers of ]>moderation and censorship first-hand, and would like to tell you what ]>has happened. I think there is an important lesson to be learned from ]>these incidents. ] ](long account of getting legal threats for quoting a message about CENSORED ]elided) ] ]This is indeed an important incident. I hope we can discuss it. Many issues ]central to Cypherpunks are involved. To name a few: ] ]* the moderation/censorship issue itself (though we have probably beaten ]this one to death in the last few weeks). ] ]* the "libel" issue, especially as it involves Sandy, his company, and the ]machine the list is hosted from. The introduction of a censor has, as many ]of us predicted, raised serious libel and liability issues. (This is the ]best reason I can think of it to move to an "alt.cypherpunks" system, where ]bypassing of liability, libel, copyright violation, etc., laws is ]naturally handled by the globally decentralized and uncontrolled nature of ]Usenet.) ] ]* conflicts of interest issues. Apparently Sandy feels information ]deleterious to C2Net, having to do with a claimed CENSORED in the software ]product CENSORED, cannot be passed by him to _either_ of the two lists to ]which articles are supposed to be sent. (Sadly, he did not tell us of this ]meta-censorship when it happened. This made what he did deceptive as well ]as wrong.) ] ]* chilling of discussion. As "Against Moderation" notes, merely _quoting_ ]the article of another caused Sandy to not only reject his article, but ]also to contact him and raise the threat of legal action. (This even though ]Against Moderation added all sorts of "obviously false" comments to what ]Vulis had written.) ] ]* even more threats. At the request of CENSORED today, I called CENSORED ]and had a verbal communication with him (a nice guy, by the way) about this ]situation. He averred that "you don't want to be pulled into this," and ]suggested that if I post certain things, even quoting the reports that a ]CENSORED exists in CENSORED, I could well be sued by the lawyers of his ]company! ] ]These are issues which remailers, decentralized servers, anonymity, data ]havens, and other Cypherpunks technologies make important issues for us to ]discuss. ] ] ]When did Cypherpunks start thinking about libel? (Obvious answer: when ]_their_ companies were the targets of criticism, lies, libel, whatever.) ]It's not as if insulting or even "libelous" (I'm not a lawyer) comments ]have not been made routinely on the list. Insulting companies and other ]institutions has been standard Cypherpunks fare since the beginning. ]Mykotronx has been accused of high crimes, RSADSI has been declared to be ]placing backdoors in code, Phil Zimmermann has been declared to be an NSA ]plant ("only trust the versions of PGP before he cut the deal to get his ]freedom"), and so on. Think about it. Just about any company with any ]product related to crypto has at one time or another had their motives ]questioned, their products slammed, etc. ] ]Unfortunately, our Late Censor is an employee of one of the companies so ]slammed, and he has reacted by rejecting one or more of these slams without ]bothering to tell the list that he has to do so. (Were it me, I would have ]"recused" myself from the decision, or at least told the list in general ]terms what was going on, or, more likely, resigned as censor. But then I ]would never have been a list.censor in the first place.) ] ]I understand that Sandy is stepping down as our Moderator. The Censor is ]Dead, Long Live Sandy! I expect to harbor no continuing resentment toward ]Sandy (though I expect things will be strained for a while, as might be ]expected). ] ]The issues raised are ugly ones. Here's what scares me: the "precedent" may ]irretrievably be established that companies offended by words on the list ]will threaten legal action to recover their good name. I can imagine ]Mykotronx or even First Virtual citing the actions of C2Net as a precedent ](a cultural precedent, to the extent there is such a thing) for their own ]legal letters. ] ]As with the terrible precedent set by the "even Cypherpunks had to censor ]themselves" experiment, these companies may be able to say "But even a ]Cypherpunk-oriented company realized that the antidote for damaging speech ]was not rebutting speech. No, these Cypherpunks realized that some ]threatening letters and pulling the plug on the speaker was a better ]approach." ] ]And we won't be able to easily argue that Mykotronx has no right to do this ]while C2Net does. ] ]Sandy, in his message a few hours ago to Against Moderation, even made the ]claim (and Sandy _is_ a lawyer, or at least once was) that John Gilmore ]could be held liable for speech on the Cypherpunks list. (I don't doubt the ]"could," but I hate like hell to see a Cypherpunkish company leading the ]charge.) ] ]Perhaps this is true. But the Censorship experiment, and the resulting ]threats of legal action by C2Net to stop mention of the alleged CENSORED in ]their product CENSORED, fuel the fire. Instead of denigrating such legal ]moves--as I'm sure most Cypherpunks would have done a few years ago if ]RSADSI were to try to sue people for making outrageous claims--we have a ]major company consisting of several leading Cypherpunks making just such ]threats. ] ]I'm not a legal scholar, but is it really the case that merely _alluding_ ]to the allegedly libelous comments of another is itself a libel? Is a ]reporter who writes that "Person X has alleged that Product Y has a Flaw Z" ]thus committing a libel? (I don't think so, as reporters frequently report ]such things. If merely quoting an alleged libel is also libel, then ]presumably a lot of reporters, and even court clerks reporting on cases, ]are libelers.) ] ](ObLisp reference: quoting an expression ought to have a different return ]value than evaluating an expression! That's what quotes are for.) ] ]My comments this past week have not been motivated by animosity toward ]Sandy, and certainly my comments today are not motivated by any animosity ]about C2Net or any of its employees (including CENSORED, whom I spoke with ]today). ] ]My comments started out as being a summary of why I had left Cypherpunks ]when the Great Hijacking was announced. Since last Sunday, when I issued my ]"Moderation" post, I've only responded to messages I was CC:ed on, or to ]messages on the Flames list, which I subscribed to temporarily to better ]see what Sandy was calling flames. The discovery that certain posts were ]not appearing on either the Main list or the Flames list triggered today's ]comments about Sandy and the alleged CENSOREDCENSOREDCENSORED (blah blah ]blah). ] ]I hope we can declare this Censorship experiment a failure and move on. ]However, it is almost certain that as a result of attempts to suppress ]certain views, that the move back to an unfiltered state will mean that ]some will use anonymous remailers and nym servers to post even _more_ ]claims, however outrageous. ] ]This is a predictable effect. Cf. Psychology 101 for an explanation. ]Kicking Vulis off the list predictably produced a flood of Vulis ]workarounds, and a surge in insults via anonymous remailers. Instituting ]censorship of the list triggered a flood of comments critical of the ]experiment, and a predictable "testing" of the censorship limits. And, ]finally, now that C2Net is threatening legal action to stop ]discussion--even in quotes!!--of alleged CENSORED in CENSORED, expect a lot ]of repetition of these claims via remailers. And, I predict, claims about ]CENSORED will even be spread more widely, e.g., on the Usenet. ] ](Sadly, I half expect a letter from some lawyers or lawyer larvae saying I ]am "suborning libel," or somesuch nonsense. As Sandy would say, "piffle." ]Lawyers, take your best shot.) ]Message-Id: <v03007800af225b8581dd@[207.167.93.63]> ]Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 09:22:08 -0800 ]To: cypherpunks@toad.com ]From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> ]Subject: META: Censorship is Going Way too Far ] ] ]Fellow Cypherpunks (of the virtual community, even if not part of any ]particular version of the list(s)), ] ] ]I am about to drive over the Santa Cruz mountains for today's physical ]meeting at Stanford, and made my last check of the Singapore archive site ]to see if my last several messages to the CP list have appeared. (The ]Singapore site archives the main list every four hours; the latest update ]is 08:15 PST, local time.) ] ]They have _not_ appeared, on either of the two lists, the main list and ]filtered list. I don't know if they have appeared on the "unfiltered" list, ]as I don't have access to an archive site for that, and don't subscribe to ]it. Some of these articles are now more than 18 hours old. ] ](I scanned the archive site carefully and did not see any of my articles. ]If I somehow missed them (all four?!), I apologize to the Moderator and ]will make an appointment with my eye doctor.) ] ]Further, messages dated _much_ later in time are now on the Singapore site, ]meaning they were "approved." (The latest such message I see is from J. ]Blatz, and is dated 2/8/97, 02:58 a.m., EST, which is fully 10 hours after ]the first of my messages which never appeared on either the main list or ]the flames list.) ] ]My articles are dated: ] ]* 2/7/97, 1:46 p.m. PST ] ]* 2/7/97, 1:59 p.m., PST ] ]* 2/7/97, 3:03 p.m., PST ] ]* 2/7/97, 9:46 p.m., PST ] ]I would normally give the message names here, but I suspect that even ]mention of the message titles would cause _this_ message to be filtered ]into the black hole list. So, by avoiding even mention of the message ]titles, I should be safe. Nothing in this message can be considered flamish ](beyond normal criticism) or libelous. ] ](Many articles with dates later than these have already appeared on the ]main list, and some have already appeared on the Flames list. Why have none ]of my articles gone through as of this morning?) ] ]The subjects of my articles deal with the claims made by "Against ]Moderation" and Vulis that certain articles were filtered from the stream ]of articles without appearing on either the main list or the flames list, ]and with no mention by the Moderator of this significant change to the ]moderation policies. ] ]I surmise that my articles are similarly vanishing into a black hole, ]presumably because I have questioned the policies here. (Possibly my ]articles have been side-tracked for further review, or for review by a ]certain company's legal staff, or whatever. If so, this should be explained ]to the main list. And the implications of this, if it is happening, should ]be discussed on the main list.) ] ]By the way, I will deliberately make no mention of the details of my ]articles, or of those by Against Moderation, as I also surmise that any ]articles dealing with a certain product by a certain company will be ]filtered out completely. ] ](I carefully did not repeat the claims made against one of these products ]in my articles, so there is no way under the sun I can be charged in any ]court with "libel.") ] ]To paraphrase the Detweiler of a couple of years ago, "I am quite shocked ]by this situation." It is one thing to filter out posts which contain ]infantile, barnyard taunts and insults, it is quite another to filter out ]_content_. ] ]And it is even worse to not pass on these filtered comments to the "flames" ]list, which was putatively set up to contain such comments. Worse still ]that the list as a whole is not being told of this policy, and that posts ]which mention it are not going out. ] ](There has been some discussion of articles not going out, such as in Igor ]Chudov's recent articles, but I surmise from his article that Igor is ]unaware of the filtering I'm talking about here. I am copying Igor on this ]message, to ensure he knows at least part of what is going on here.) ] ]There is no justification in any of the stated moderation goals for ]blocking articles such as mine, or this one. ] ]As my posts yesterday did not contain flames or insults (beyond normal ]minor turns of phrase some might not like, just as _this_ post contains ]mildly flamish comments if one is so inclined to see _any_ criticism as ]flamish), they should have appeared on the main list. They have not, so ]far, even though articles generated many hours later have already appeared ]on the main list. ] ]And, as of minutes ago, they have not appeared on the Flames list, even if ]the Moderator decided they were flamish. (Even if _one_ was, arguably, not ]all of them were.) ] ]So, we are increasingly in a situation where: ] ]a. the moderation policies appear to be changing on a daily basis ] ]b. articles which are not even flamish are being dumped ] ]c. some of these dumped articles are not even appearing on the "Flames" list ] ]d. the appearance of a conflict of interest is increasing ] ]e. discussion is being squelched ] ]I am cc:ing this message to a handful of Cypherpunks to ensure that it gets ]some propagation before today's meeting. ] ]I find it very sad that things have come to this. ] ] ]--Tim May I wrote: ]Subject: Re: META: Censorship is Going Way too Far ]From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) ]Message-Id: <68qT2D82w165w@bwalk.dm.com> ]Date: Sat, 08 Feb 97 15:39:16 EST ]In-Reply-To: <199702081136.LAA26752@mailhub.amaranth.com> ] ]"William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@amaranth.com> writes: ]> ]> In <v03007800af225b8581dd@[207.167.93.63]>, on 02/08/97 at 11:22 AM, ]> "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> said: ]> ]> >They have _not_ appeared, on either of the two lists, the main list and ]> >filtered list. I don't know if they have appeared on the "unfiltered" list, ]> >I don't have access to an archive site for that, and don't subscribe to it. ]> >Some of these articles are now more than 18 hours old. ]> ]> All 4 of your post made it to the unfiltered list. ]> ]> I don't know what made it to the moderated/flam list as I had switched to the ]> unmoderated list yesterday morning. ] ]I'm monitoring all 3 lists... A whole batch of Tim's posts made it to the ]cypherpunks-unedited list, but to neither filtered list (he listed them in ]another article that appeared so far on the "unedited" list but not on ]either filtered list). ] ]Also a message on the taboo subject from John Young appeared on 'unedited' ]but not on either filtered list. Its headers were: ] ]]Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.19970207222314.006ca6f0@pop.pipeline.com> ]]Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 17:23:14 -0500 ]]To: cypherpunks@toad.com ]]From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com> ] ](I suppose Sandy can't stop JYA from placing it on his Web site, can he? :-) ] ]A whole lot of my articles over the last week didn't make it to either ]filtered list. This is nothing new... but the following is: ] ]My article, quoting the threatening letter that C2Net's lawyers had sent ]me, has not appeared even on cypherpunks-unedited! Its headers were: ] ]]To: cypherpunks@toad.com ]]Cc: tcmay@got.net,antimod@nym.alias.net ]]From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) ]]Message-ID: <ZyeT2D76w165w@bwalk.dm.com> ]]Date: Sat, 08 Feb 97 11:14:34 EST ]]In-Reply-To: <v03007803af21536e1a68@[207.167.93.63]> ](i.e., in reply to Timmy May's article that appeared on the unedited list, ]but not on either filtered list.) ] ]I'd like to know whether the cc: recipients got it. Thanks. ]I'm also bcc'ing this article to a bunch of people, and encourage them ]to quote it to the list. ] ]I assume that suppressing my articles from appearing on the unedited ]list would require cooperation from John Gilmore. [snip] Someone wrote: ]Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 06:33:13 -0800 ]From: Cuckoo <cuckoo@cuckoo.com> ]To: cypherpunks@toad.com ]Subject: Re: Who's Censoring Who? ]References: <1.5.4.32.19970209181732.006dba6c@pop.pipeline.com> <32FF2971.6099@cuckoo.com> ] ]John Young wrote: ] > Sandy's e-mailed several of us who've sent messages about Vulis's ] > ploy to put Sandy in a conflict-of-interest bind ] ] Did Sandy happen to mention how the evil Dr. Vulis managed to ] twist his impressionable young mind so that his only concern about ] libel is centered around his employer? ] ] Did Sandy mention why his employer went nuclear over the mention ] of the 'b-d' word by an individual whom his employees on the list ] regularly label as a troublemaker and a nut case? ] (Methinks they doth protest _too_ much?) ] ] Did Sandy mention that his employer is in the postion of owning ] the cypherpunks.com domain-name and is in a great postion to profit ] by controlling and/or destroying the cypherpunks list? ] Did Sandy mention that when his own takeover of the list (by ] virtue of 'moving' the subscribers into a list filtered by himself) ] faltered, by becoming an open joke, that one of his fellow employees ] called for the "killing" of the list? ] Did Sandy mention that the pecker-tracks of his employers minions ] leave a sordid trail across the whole face of this whole censorship ] farce? ] ] Gee, John, I wish that I had crypto software to sell, and employees ] who were in control of the reputation capital of the cypherpunks list. ] I wish that I had a domain named cypherpunks.com waiting to capitalize ] on the cypherpunks name to sell my crypto software. ] Of course, some asshole somewhere might regard this as a "ploy" ] to profit from creating misfortune for the cypherpunks. They might ] even think that I had a hand in that misfortune. ] ] ] > It's probably worth saving accusations of censorship for the real ]> thing ] What fucking planet have you been living on, shit-for-brains? ] We're not talking about "accusations," here. We're talking about ] posts by average list subscribers who are coming forward and speaking ] out about the facts surrounding the misappropriation of their posts ] in order to further the private interests of Sandy. ] We're talking about the suppression of postings which Question ] Authority. We're talking about shit-canning postings without ] informing the list, because the actions are reprehensible. We're ] talking about censorship which, in the censor's own words, is not ] based on crypto-relevancy, but a changing morass of ill-defined ] 'Sandy rules' (or 'Sandy Rules!', if you prefer). ] We're talking about robotic censorship where those who do not ] bend under the jackboots suppressing free speech on the cypherpunks ] list are auto-botted to cypherpunks-dontsaybadthingsaboutmyemployer. ] ] Your posts are usually fairly intelligent, so I have no idea why ] you are wasting your own reputation capital attempting to defend ] an inept, lame-duck censor who is too cowardly to defend his own ] vile actions. ] Instead, he declares that he has absolutely no interest in ] filtering out the "Make Money Fast" and "Penis-Picture" garbage ] for list members if he can't use his usurped-power to slam the ] jackboots down on any niggling detail that doesn't serve his ] own private interests. ] ] Cuckoo (<-- Dr. Vulis 'made' me use this name.) Gilmore defends C2net's censorship: ]To: cypherpunks@toad.com, gnu@toad.com ]Subject: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up" ]Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 03:54:29 -0800 ]From: John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com> ]Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com ] ]Sandy hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. Nemesis ]submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous statements about ]Sandy's employer. He never anticipated that he wouldn't be able to ]follow his announced "post it to one list or the other" policy because ]to do so would make him legally liable (in his opinion; he's a lawyer, ]I'm not). His gears jammed, and the whole machine came to a halt for ]a few days. [snip] Dr. Adam Back's analysis is pretty accurate: ]Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 23:49:09 GMT ]Message-Id: <199702162349.XAA00536@server.test.net> ]From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk> ]To: cypherpunks@toad.com ]Subject: Moderation experiment and moderator liability ] ] ]There appears to be a bit of a hush up surrounding the circumstances ]of the pause in the moderation experiment and subsequent change of ]moderation policy. ] ]To clear the air, I think it would be kind of nice if the full story ]were told, so I'll gather here a history as I understand it. ]Information from my archives (those I have), and from asking around in ]email. ] ]I realise that some of the actions that I am claiming of participants ]in this sequence of events seem hard to believe given their high ]reputation capital. I was myself initially dubious on the strength of ]the reputation capital of those being critisized. ] ]However the below is the sequence of events as close as I can ]determine. ] ]I welcome being proven wrong on any points. ] ] ]Events: ] ]1. Dimitri Vulis posted a lot of off topic posts over a period of time ] ]2. Dimitri reposted a couple of 50k Serdar Argic revisionist articles ] ]3. Dimitri challenged John Gilmore to shut him up ] ]4. John unsubscribed Dimitri, and modified majordomo@toad.com to ]siltently ignore Dimitri's attempts to resubscribe. Dimitri could ]still post, and presumably read cypherpunks with a different email ]address or via an archive. It was a token unsubscription only. ] ]5. When Dimitri figured out what John had done, he made many posts ]denigrating John as a censor ] ]6. Much discussion ensued critisizing John for blocking Dimitri ] ]7. Over Christmas some joker subscribed cypherpunks@toad.com to a load ]of sports mailing lists, Hugh Daniels and John cleaned up the mess ] ]8. Followed a long thread on hardening lists against spam attacks ] ]9. John made a post to the list announcing that the list would be ]moderated for one month from Jan 11 as an experiment, and included ]Sandy Sandfort's proposed moderatation policy and offer to act as ]moderator. It appeared that the moderation experiment was Sandy's ]suggestion, and that John had agreed to go along with it. ] ]10. Some discussion both pro and con of moderation, and the technical ], free speech, and legal aspects followed ] ]11. Moderation started Jan 19, the main list became the moderated list ] ]12. Lots of people complained about the moderation, some defended it ]Tim May quietly unsubscribed ] ]13. Some people complained about inconsistency in moderation -- some ]articles which went to flames were not flamish, but made by posters ]with low reputation capital, or were following up to posts which were ]flamish. ] ]14. After a while some people commented on Tim's absence, and sent him ]mail asking what happened. Tim posted an article explaining that he ]had left because of the imposed moderation without discussion. ] ]15. John followed up with a post defending the moderation experiment, ]and arguing for it's popularity (he claimed as evidence the number of ]posters who had not taken the trouble to move to the unedited list). ] ]16. Dimitri posted an article where he claimed that there was a ]security flaw in Stronghold. Stronghold is C2Nets commercial version ]of the freeware Apache SSL web server. Sandy is employed by C2Net. ] ]17. Sandy dropped the posting entirely -- it went to neither ]cypherpunks (edited), nor cypherpunks-flames. He considered that ]forwarding the posting would have made him legally liable. Sandy is a ]lawyer by profession. He did not explain this situation on the list. ] ]18. Tim May had by now subscribed to cypherpunks-flames, and posted ]several follow-ups to Dimitri's posting, discussing the issue of ]Dimitri's post being dropped, and stated that Dimitri's posting was ]not flamish, and should not have been dropped in his opinion. Tim's ]postings were also silently dropped, going to neither of cypherpunks ](edited), and cypherpunks-flames. ] ]19. Sandy made an announcement that he was ending his participation in ]the moderation experiment. Still no explanation of why posts were ]dropped, or even admission that they were. ] ]20. The two moderated cypherpunks lists (cypherpunks and ]cypherpunks-flames) went dead for some time. ] ]21. Tim received a warning from C2Net's lawyers that if he did not ]desist from mentioning that Dimitri had posted an article criticising ]a C2Net product that he would be sued! ] ]22. John posted a statement where he explained Sandy's sudden ]announcement of ending his particpation. John explained that Sandy ]had "hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. Nemesis ]submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous statements about ]Sandy's employer". Sandy did not drop Johns posting even though it ]covered the same topics that had resulted in Tim's posts being ]dropped, and resulted in Tim receiving legal threats from C2Net. In ]the same post John said that he had come to the conclusion that he was ]no longer willing to host the cypherpunks list. In this post John ]announced that Sandy had been persuaded to continue to moderate for ]the remainder of the moderation period, and gave the new policy. The ]changes were that anything other than crypto discussion and discussion ]of forming a new cypherpunks list would go to flames, and anything ]that Sandy thought was libelous would be dropped silently. ] ]23. Sandy posted a statement affirming that he would continue to ]moderate, and that if any cypherpunks wished to discuss his prior ]moderation policy and performance as a moderator that they do it on ]new lists which they create themselves. ] ] ](If Sandy's current moderation criteria mean that he feels obliged to ]forward this post to cypherpunks-flames as off-topic, or even to ]silently drop it from both moderated lists, so be it. I will simply ]repost it later, when the moderation experiment is over on one of the ]new lists. In the event of myself receiving legal threats, I shall ]simply post it via a remailer, or rely on someone else to do so. C2 ]does not appear to be running any remailers at the moment, otherwise I ]would use a remailer hosted at c2.net as the exit node in the remailer ]chain.) ] ] ]The positive outcome of all this has been to make the cypherpunks list ]more resilient to legal attack. The new distributed list seems to be ]progressing well, and will be less liable to attack. Filtering ]services continue, as they should. And alt.cypherpunks has been ]created as a forum ultimately resistant to legal attack. ] ]Also I should say that I would hope that no one holds any long term ]animosity towards any of the players in this episode, many of the ]people have been very prolific in their work to further online privacy ]and freedom, and I hope that we can all put this chapter behind us. [snip] C2Net denied threatening to sue Tim May, so he refuted their lies: ]Message-Id: <199702170412.UAA18115@toad.com> ]Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 19:14:04 -0800 ]From: Tim May <tcmay@got.net> ]To: cypherpunks@toad.com ]Newgroups: alt.cypherpunks, alt.privacy, comp.org.eff.talk ]Subject: Threats of Legal Action and C2Net/Stronghold Issue ] ](A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups: ]alt.cypherpunks, alt.privacy, comp.org.eff.talk) ] ] ]At 6:07 PM -0800 2/16/97, Sandy Sandfort wrote: ] ]>Curiously, in a subsequent telephone conversation, Tim May ]>proposed almost that exact suggestion as an alternative form of ]>moderation that he said would have been acceptable to him. Go ]>figure. ] ]The only phone conversation I had was with Doug Barnes, at the request of ]Doug that I urgently phone either him or Sameer. I called Doug as soon as I ]got the message. (Doug also said he was the only one in the room at the ]time, and that the call was *not* being recorded, so I have to surmise that ]Sandy got his version of things via a recap by Doug.) ] ] ]>> 21. Tim received a warning from C2Net's lawyers that if he did not ]>> desist from mentioning that Dimitri had posted an article criticising ]>> a C2Net product that he would be sued! ]> ]>Absolutely false. ]> ] ]What Doug told me was that Dimitri Vulis had already been served with a ]legal notice about his warnings about a security flaw in Stronghold, and ]that any repetition of Dimitri's claims by me or anyone else would result ]in similar legal action. ] ]Doug said that any repetition of the claims, even as part of a quote, would ]be seen as actionable by C2Net. "We'll vigorously defend our rights." (as ]best I can recall) He said he thought my messages, to the extent they ]merely _alluded_ to the claims were probably OK and that they would ]certainly go through to the list, as Sandy has already resigned from his ]role as moderator. ] ](For the record, these messages DID NOT GO THROUGH, and have not gone ]through as of tonight, 8-9 days later. However, I have forwarded them to ]several people who requested them.) ] ](I also did not have a recorder running, so I can't claim this is a ]verbatim summary of what was said. As to what I said about how the ]moderation thing might have been done differently, Doug and I chatted for a ]while about various alternatives. I raised the point I've made before, that ]having a "members only" policy, with some special provision for some amount ]of remailed messages, would probably best suit the notion of keeping the ]"community" running. What I told Doug was that my main objection was having ]Sandy sit in judgement to essays folks might have spent a long time ]composing, and I cited physical parties, where a host invites those he ]wants in attendance, but does not micromanage or screen conversations being ]held at the party. My sense was that Doug agreed, and agreed that the whole ]thing had been handled in a bad way...but Doug should comment to tell his ]view of things.) ] ]The next day, at the physical Cyperpunks meeting at Stanford, I briefly ]talked to Greg Broiles, working as a legal aide at C2Net. I told Greg he ]could "take his best shot," in terms of filing suit against me about my ]messages, as I'm prepared to fight C2Net in court on this matter, and have ]the financial resources to hire some pretty good lawyers. (I don't recall ]if Greg replied, or what his reply was.) ] ]In a message to Cypherpunks, I outlined my understanding of the Vulis ]report on security flaws in Stronghold, and put the claims in the context ]of messages not appearing on either of the two main lists, but none of my ]messages were sent to either the Main list or the Flames list. ] ](I also had communication with several members of the list, some known to ]me and some only pseudonyms. I have taken the precaution of erasing these ]messages and copying files to the disk on which they resided to head off ]any attempts by C2Net seize my computer and disks as part of some ]"discovery" process.) ] ]I find it unfortunate that C2Net is behaving in such a manner, and their ]actions are generating far more publicity about the claimed security flaws ]in Stronghold than the original Vulis message ever would have generated. ] ]Sunlight is the best disinfectant, as a Supreme Court justice averred. And ]suppression is a breeding ground for all sorts of bacteria, fungi, and ugly ]growth, as a less articulate person said. [snip] In conclusion, I want to thank Dale Thorn, Toto, and all other punks who participated in the good fight against C2net's censorship. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
I sent this large article out a while back, and apparently it never showed up on the mailing list. Perhaps it was too large I'll re-send it again in two smaller chunks. This article includes several long quotes. I urge anyone still interested in the C2Net/StrongHold thread to read the whole thing. I don't expect to need to contribute to this thread again. The "anonymous" C2Net shill (easily recognizable) wrote:
C2Net was wrong to censor the cypherpunks list in the guise of moderation. It was wrong to send threatening letters to people who claimed its products were weak.
"Moderation" is a misnomer. C2Net engaged in outright fraud by providing a list which C2Net claimed would contain the articles rejected by the C2Net moderator, then censoring articles from both the censored and the uncensored lists. At least one of my articles (not the one about Stronghold; the one quoting the threatening letter from C2net's lawyers) didn't make it even to the "unedited" list. I immediately recognized the "anonymous" shill's hysterical posting style (repeatedly calling me a "liar" and a closet homosexual, making numerous references to my ethnicity and visa status (incorrectly)). Do you happen to remember C2Net's "marketing director" who tried to create the nym "Locutus" via the remailers, and blew his cover because he couldn't change his style?
The burden of proof in claiming that there is a weakness in someone's security product is on those making the claim.
Nope. The burden of proof is on the vendor selling the product. In this case, the vendor is unwilling or unable to present any evidence of the product's security, so it threatens the security experts who question the product.
If anyone really does believe that C2Net's products have backdoors or weaknesses, why don't they present them?
Because C2net's lawyers have been harrassing those who did - plenty of their threats are quoted below. Somebody wrote, and I suspect that it wasn't cc'd to the list, so I'll skip the name:
Are you able to tell some one privately what's wrong with it ??
I'm very sorry, but I'd rather not... Somebody else wrote (my headers are a mess; I apologize profusely if I'm quoting private e-mail to the list. which I suspect I'm doing)
I'm pretty curious, because threatening individuals with lawsuits for questioning the quality of a product seems like an act of desperation. It also seems like it wouldn't hold up in court for a minute.
I agree that this is the behavior one would expect from a vendor that has any confidence at all in its product or in its ability to answer questions about its product in an uncensored discussion.
Imagine if McDonalds tried to sue someone that said big macs suck.
The judge would throw out the case after a good belly laugh.
As a matter of fact, McDonald's did sue some folks in the U.K. (where libel laws are even weirder than in the U.S.) who were basically saying that hamburgers aren't healthy. The defendants won just recently. One of the problems with the U.S. legal system that you can be on the defending end of a totally meritless suit, and still not recover your legal fees when the suit is laughed out of court. C2Net's harrassment included calling my home and threatening my mother-in-law; threatening to seize all my computers as part of the "discovery process"; etc (check out some of their threats below). Since I have nothing to gain by publicizing the truth about them, I'd rather not deal with these creeps. Jeff Barber <jeffb@issl.atl.hp.com> wrote:
Lucky is lying: the censored articles were also filtered from the list which was billed as being unfiltered.
This is revisionist history. I can't recall any intimation at the time that any messages were filtered from the unfiltered list.
If you can't recall, I'm quoting a bunch of stuff below. At least one of my articles, the one quoting the threatening letter from C2net's lawyers, didn't make it even to the "unedited" list. The "anonymous" C2net shill further wrote:
While it is true that Dmitri is a proven liar in the grand tradtion of the Soviet Union (shout a lie long enough and loud enough and eventually some people will start to believe it), and a pathological homophobic bigot (who secretly enjoys sucking cock but wears womens clothing to disguise himself),
C2Net's shill called me a liar about a dozen times, yet hasn't presented any evidence of me ever lying. On the other hand, C2net's claim that I'm a closet homosexual is an outright lie, typical of Sameer Parekh and his employees.
Of course, by that time Dmitri had so little reputation capital that Gilmore patched Majordomo so it wouldn't even respect a subscription request for him.
This is correct: John Gilmore tried to censor me from this mailing list. As the result, I'm still here, John Gilmore no longer runs this list, and John Gilmore's "reputation capital" is extremely negative. C2net's shill seems to approve of Gilmore's actions, demonstrating once again that he he is employed by a dishonest and dishonorable organization.
Ultimately, Dmitri's allegations of weaknesses in Stronghold, true or not, are totally irrelevant. Without mathematical proof of a weakness, he simply cannot be believed to ever be telling the truth. So, if C2 said to him in private e-mail, "if you call Sameer a cocksucker one more time, we'll slap a libel suit across your emigrant ass, take back your green card, deport you and tell Russia that you called Yeltsin a cocksucker," well, I can understand why he shut up.
Hmm, I turned in my green card about 12 years ago, when I got naturalized... For what it's worth, Sameer is an Arab, and we all know the old Arab proverb: "Women for sons, boys for pleasure, but goats for sheer extasy." However C2net's barratrous threats were not transmitted by e-mail and had nothing to do with Sameer's alleged sexual preferences. Rather, I received 5 or 6 threatening phone calls at home from Janet M. Craycroft. Also the following threatening letter was served on me (on a weekend!) ]Gray Cary Ware ] Frieidenrich ]A professional corporation ] ]Attorneys at Law Janet M. Craycroft ]400 Hamilton Avenue Direct Dial: (415) 833-2297 ]Palo Alto, CA 94301-1826 Internet: JCRAYCROFT@GCWF.COM ]Tel (415) 328-6561 ]Fax (415) 327-3699 Our File No. ] 9999999 ] ] January 21, 1997 ] ] ]VIA OVERNIGHT COURIER ]--------------------- ] ] ]Mr. Dimitri Vulis ]6767 Burns Street, #4K ]Forest Hills, New York 11375-3555 ] ] Re: Internet Postings on Cypherpunks@toad.com ] ]Dear Mr. Vulis: ] ] This firm represents C2Net, a California Corporation. It has come to our attention ]that you are publishing false, defamatory statements about C2Net and its products. ]Specifically, we direct your attention to your January 30, 1997 Internet posting to the ]Cypherpunks@toad.com mailing list which you entitled "Security alert!!!" (A copy of this e- ]mail is enclosed.) ... ] As you are undoubtedly already aware, Stronghold is a web server that protects ]Internet traffic encryption. Stronghold is not a "backdoor" to steal credit card numbers. The ]statements contained in your e-mail directly cast aspersions upon C2Net's product and ]business which will not be tolerated. Dr. Vulis, at a minimum, your e-mail exposes you to ]civil liability for defamation, tortious interference with business relations, interntional ]interference with contractual relations and permits C2Net to seek compensatory damages as ]well as punitive damages against you personally. ] ] C2Net has authorized this firm to take all action necessary to put an immediate stop to ]your actions and conduct as described above, as well as any other conduct or actions ]undertaken by you which might prove to be harmful to C2Net. Such authorization includes ]the filing of a lawsuit against you to obtain injunctive relief as well as compensatory and ]punitive damages. ] ] Given the seriousness of this matter, we insist that you stop disseminating the January ]30 e-mail or any version of such e-mail. If you continue to publish defamatory statements ]about C2Net and its products, we will pursue all remedies against you. So that there is no ]misunderstanding, please confirm in writing by february 4, 1997, that you will agree not to ]further disseminate the January 30 e-mail or versions of such e-mail. ] ] Should you have any questions, please contact me or have your attorney contact me. ] ] Very truly yours, ] ] GRAY CARY WARE & FREIDENRICH ] A Professional Corporation ] ] [Signature] ] Janet M. Craycroft ] ]Enclosure ][deleted] The letter pretty much speaks for itself. Let me just point out that 1) I never claimed that "Stronghold is a backdoor", which makes no sense, 2) Sameer Parekh inists on addressing me as "Mr." because he's a college dropout extremely envious of anyone educated better than him.
So, don't hold your breath waiting for a repost of previous lies from our dear Kook of the Fucking Century.
Yep - since there have been no "previous lies", a repost is impossible. But here are a few list articles from the time of the "C2Net moderation experiment". For those who aren't award, Sandy Sandfart is the marketing guy at C2Net who was trying to "moderate" this mailing list. Sandy Sandfart posted the following lie (note the date): ]Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 11:26:27 -0800 (PST) ]From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com> ]To: Mike Duvos <mpd@netcom.com> ]Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com ]Subject: Re: My messages not appearing on either of the lists? ]In-Reply-To: <199702071636.IAA26298@netcom19.netcom.com> ]Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970207112428.25330B-100000@crl.crl.com> ]Sender: owner-cypherpunks@toad.com ] ]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ] SANDY SANDFORT ] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] ]C'punks, ] ]On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Mike Duvos wrote: ] ]> ...Messages apparently do not get moderated in the order in ]> which they are received... ] ]All messages are filtered and posted in the order in which I ]receive them. ] ] ] S a n d y To which Tim May wrote (and Sandy spiked this article, and many others): ]Message-Id: <v03007803af21536e1a68@[207.167.93.63]> ]In-Reply-To: <e90q2D50w165w@bwalk.dm.com> ]References: <v03007801af20611fe990@[207.167.93.63]> ]Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 13:59:23 -0800 ]To: cypherpunks@toad.com ]From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> ]Subject: More on the Stronghold Charge ]Cc: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) ] ]Vulis has sent me private mail, which I won't quote here because of the ]usual netiquette standards that private mail not be quoted (though it's ]legal to do so). He asserts that a few weeks ago he sent criticisms of ]Stronghold out to the Cypherpunks list, and the criticisms did not appear ]on any of the distributed lists. ] ]He claims he then received communications from C2Net of a legal nature, ]threatening him with legal action. I'll let Vulis elaborate if he wishes, ]as I don't know the situation. And I encourage him to do so, for more than ]one reason. ] ]As I just replied to "Against Moderation" on, I would like to see these ]articles which were suppressed. Please repost them to the list, and copy me ]to ensure that I get them. ] ]If this claim is true, that Sandy blocked criticism of Stronghold from ]reaching either the Main list (bad enough), or from even going out at all ]on the Flames list (reprehensible), then this is an extremely serious ]charge. ] ]If the claim is true that Sandy used articles sent to the Cypherpunks list, ]but never distributed to the list, as the basis by the company which ]employs him of legal threats of any kind, then this is even more than just ]"extremely serious." ] ]I would like to hear more from Vulis, and copies of any such articles, and ]of course would like to hear Sandy's version of things. ] ]This is too serious a charge not to resolve. ] ]--Tim May ] ]Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" ]We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ]---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- ]Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ]tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero ]W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, ]Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. ]"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." ]Date: 8 Feb 1997 04:31:15 -0000 ]Message-Id: <19970208043115.2364.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> ]From: Against Moderation <antimod@nym.alias.net> ]Subject: The Frightening Dangers of Moderation ]To: cypherpunks@toad.com ]Cc: tcmay@got.net ]Precedence: bulk ] ]-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- ] ]Well, folks, tonight I have witnessed the frightening dangers of ]moderation and censorship first-hand, and would like to tell you what ]has happened. I think there is an important lesson to be learned from ]these incidents. ] ]Before I explain what has happened, I want to make one thing ]absolutely clear. Though I've thought the moderation of cypherpunks ]was a terrible idea from the start and am even more convinced of it ]now, I don't assign any blame to Sandy. I believe he offered to ]moderate the list with the best of intentions, and I sincerely ]appreciate his efforts to try to revive what was once a fantastic ]mailing list, even if in my opinion those efforts have backfired. ] ]Sandy has been a valuable advocate of cypherpunk beliefs and a lively ]contributor to cypherpunks list for a long time. Though the ]moderation experiment has resulted in some terrible consequences, we ]can't blame him for what has happened. If the events I have witnessed ]tonight occured with such a high-standing member of the cypherpunks ]community in charge, the cause of them can only be the very nature of ]moderation and censorship. I don't think any of us could have done ]much better in Sandy's shoes. ] ]Now, what happened tonight? As some of you may recall, a month or so ]ago I vehemently argued against the elimination of the ]cypherpunks-unedited mailingt list. Some people (though no one ]associated with toad.com) were claiming that 3 mailing lists might be ]too much load, and that having cypherpunks and cypherpunks-flames ]would be enough. I argued that not only would the delay of waiting ]for a decision put alternate cypherpunks moderators at a disadvantage, ]it would make it farm more difficult to convince people of the ]moderator's honesty as there would be no guarantee that messages made ]it to either list. Fortunately, cypherpunks-unedited did get created ](it seems no one "in charge" ever intended not to create it). ] ]Well, as it turns out, a number of messages have made it neither to ]cypherpunks nor to cypherpunks-flames. Making matters worse, however, ]not only are certain messages being suppressed from both lists, but ]even messages mentioning that fact get suppressed from both the ]cypherpunks and the cypherpunks-flames lists! ] ]Here's exactly what happened. I was beginning to believe that Dmitri ]Vulis had sent an (admitedly objectionable) message to the cypherpunks ]mailing list, but that the message had gone to neither the cypherpunks ]nor the cypherpunks-flames lists. Since I was under the impression ]that every article was supposed to go to one list or the other, and ]many people probably still believe that, I mentioned this somewhat ]startling fact on the cypherpunks mailing list, I believe in response ]to a post by Tim May on the same subject. ] ]Tim replied (in a message Cc'ed to cypherpunks--though I don't think ]it went anywhere but to -unedited), asking me in the message, "Can you ]send to the list, with a copy to me, the articles CENSOREDCENSOREDCENS ]OREDCENSOREDCENSORE?" I therefore went back through my mail archives ]and found a copy of the message that I believed had gone to neither ]mailing list. I sent it to Tim and to cypherpunks. I prepended a few ]paragraphs in which I asked people to confirm that the message had ]gone to neither mailing list. Among other things in those paragraphs, ]I stated that Vulis's message was "verifiably false". It was clear ]from the context that I was forwarding this message to ask people ]which lists it had gone to, not because I believed the content to be ]correct or even at all convincing or interesting. That message I ]sent, quoting Vulis's, immediately follows this message, after the ]line '========'. ] ]Then, tonight, I received a message from Sandy, which I include below ]a second '========' marker. In that letter, Sandy had explicitly ]aknowledged not only that he had sent Vulis's letter to neither ]mailing list, but that he wouldn't send my letter to either mailing ]list, either! He claimed that he couldn't forward Vulis's message ]because it was libel, and accused me of committing libel simply by ]quoting Vulis's message, even though I explicitly stated that Vulis's ]message was verifiably false. ] ]Well, this travesty must exposed, even if I can't make known all the ]details for fear of libel charges. I am therefore forwarding ]everything I can to the cypherpunks mailing list, for all to see. As ]you can see, Vulis made unfounded and incorrect charges that a ]particular system contained a security hole. Believe me, if I could ]get into the details of the case I could convince you easily that his ]claim is not true. However, since even quoting that claim apparently ]opens me up to charges of libel, I can't give you the details. Thus, ]I have censored (by overriting original text with the letters ]CENSORED) any portion of quoted messages that might give you an ]indication of what system Vulis actually claimed had a security hole. ] ]This censorship should not, however, affect my main point, and the ]lesson that I hope we can all take away from this. When it comes down ]to it, the details of this case do not matter. What does matter is ]that even when the "good guys" attempt benign censorship, it can have ]frighteningly far-reaching effects on people's ability to discuss ]otherwise reasonable topics such as the mechanics of the cypherpunks ]list. I generally dislike censorship and moderation, but the ]consequences of the cypherpunks experiment have gone far beyond ]anything I could have imagined. ] ]In closing, let me reiterate that I don't think most of this is ]Sandy's, John's, or anyone else's fault. Given the knowledge I have ]of this case, I believe Sandy has unwittingly found himself ensnarled ]in a nasty legal situation where, for fear of legal reprisal he must ]block articles that he has a moral obligation to send to ]cypherpunks-flames. I certainly don't envy his position. ] ][To moderator Sandy: I believe we must get the content of this ]message to the main cypherpunks mailing list. I have done everything ]I can to ensure that the message contains no libel. If, for some ]reason, you still can't send it on to the main cypherpunks mailing ]list, can you please tell me specifically which parts cause problems. ]I will the CENSOR them out and try again. This message contains ]important, highly relevant information for the cypherpunks community. ]Please help me do what it takes to get it accepted by the moderation ]process. Thanks.] [snip] ]Date: Fri, 7 Feb 1997 16:45:31 -0800 (PST) ]From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com> ]To: Against Moderation <antimod@nym.alias.net> ]Subject: Re: Is Sandy really censoring criticisms of CENSOREDCENSOREDCENSORE? ]In-Reply-To: <19970207220720.15530.qmail@anon.lcs.mit.edu> ] ]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ] SANDY SANDFORT ] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] ]Hi, ] ]On 7 Feb 1997, Against Moderation wrote: ] ]> What I object to more strongly and think is wrong is the ]> fact that it went to *neither* list. ] ]Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that. As soon as I can ]arrange it with John, I am going to stop moderating the list. ]In the interim, I *will not* be sending your post onto either ]the Flames or the Moderated lists. This is done for legal ]reason. As it is, you have already published a libel on the ]unedited list by repeating Dimitri's libel. This exposes you to ]legal liability, but as an anonymous poster, you are somewhat ]insulated from the consequences of your act. ] ]If you would like to PRIVATELY discuss this matter with me, I ]would not mind going into more detail with you. Suffice it to ]say, I any re-publication by me of Dimitri's libel would expose ]John and myself to legal liability and could also act to ]insulate Dimitri from liability as a result of CENSOREDCENSOREDCE ]NSOREDCENDOREDCENDOREDC. ] ]Take care, ] ] ] S a n d y [to be continued] --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM writes:
"Moderation" is a misnomer. C2Net engaged in outright fraud by providing a list which C2Net claimed would contain the articles rejected by the C2Net moderator, then censoring articles from both the censored and the uncensored lists. At least one of my articles (not the one about Stronghold; the one quoting the threatening letter from C2net's lawyers) didn't make it even to the "unedited" list.
As has been pointed out before, "C2Net" never "provided a list" (at least not one relevant to this discussion). Since it is clear you are fully aware of that, this is sufficient to "prove" to most of us the charge of "liar" against you (ignoring the several hundred other examples that might come to mind from the last couple of years). I don't particularly care about this except that it reinforces why your credibility is so low here.
Jeff Barber <jeffb@issl.atl.hp.com> wrote: [quoting Dimitri:]
Lucky is lying: the censored articles were also filtered from the list which was billed as being unfiltered.
This is revisionist history. I can't recall any intimation at the time that any messages were filtered from the unfiltered list.
If you can't recall, I'm quoting a bunch of stuff below. At least one of my articles, the one quoting the threatening letter from C2net's lawyers, didn't make it even to the "unedited" list.
Since obviously none of us who were on the -unedited list can say for sure whether we received everything sent to it, I can't say with certainty this never happened. But.... This is the problem with being known as a liar. Nobody is inclined to believe what you say without substantitation. So I still don't see any reason to believe that anything was "censored" from the unedited list.
C2Net's shill called me a liar about a dozen times, yet hasn't presented any evidence of me ever lying. On the other hand, C2net's claim that I'm a closet homosexual is an outright lie, typical of Sameer Parekh and his employees.
I don't recall ever seeing such a claim from Sameer or anyone else at C2Net. Though given your penchant for making such "accusations" yourself, one could understand the impulse for making such a claim. The fact that *you* are constantly accusing people you don't apparently know of engaging in various sexual acts or holding a certain sexual orientation is evidence enough that you are unreliable. It seems to be your stance that you are free to fabricate anything the truth of which cannot be utterly *disproven*. This is consistent with your allegations against C2Net's product as well as the allegations of sexual acts and preferences you habitually make. Whether you like them or not, this is why libel laws and such exist. If you accuse someone of having backdoors in their product, but cannot or will not show any basis for the allegation, it's perfectly understandable that they might threaten you legally. And if you're simply "throwing rocks" at Sameer with no substance behind your allegations, the rest of us are unlikely to come to your "defense". Also, here's a little hint (from a non-lawyer): truth is generally a very good defense to a libel suit. You may squirm and dance and claim you don't want to deal with the hassle or expense of a suit, but we all know precisely what that really means... -- Jeff
Jeff Barber wrote:
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM writes:
"Moderation" is a misnomer. C2Net engaged in outright fraud by providing a list which C2Net claimed would contain the articles rejected by the C2Net moderator, then censoring articles from both the censored and the uncensored lists. At least one of my articles (not the one about Stronghold; the one quoting the threatening letter from C2net's lawyers) didn't make it even to the "unedited" list.
this is sufficient to "prove" to most of us the charge of "liar" against you (ignoring the several hundred other examples that might come to mind from the last couple of years).
Lies, like Beauty and Cocksize, are in the aye's of the beholders.
I don't particularly care about this except that it reinforces why your credibility is so low here.
The last bid I saw on the list was $ 150,000.00.
Jeff Barber <jeffb@issl.atl.hp.com> wrote: [quoting Dimitri:]
Lucky is lying: the censored articles were also filtered from the list which was billed as being unfiltered.
This is revisionist history. I can't recall any intimation at the time that any messages were filtered from the unfiltered list.
Gee, then you must have been one of the list members who were so busy pissing on anyone that disagreed with your position that you paid no attention to things you didn't want to see, and managed to block out the posts which flatly contradicted what you wanted to believe. Me? Well, I just pissed on everyone in sight, and had a jolly good time doing it, but I also subscribed to all three lists at one point or another, and I read the message headers of most of the posts to the list both before, during and after the moderation experiment. {or censorship attack, depending on the angle you were pissing from}
If you can't recall, I'm quoting a bunch of stuff below. At least one of my articles, the one quoting the threatening letter from C2net's lawyers, didn't make it even to the "unedited" list.
Since obviously none of us who were on the -unedited list can say for sure whether we received everything sent to it, I can't say with certainty this never happened. But....
Yes we can... Unless you were on a CypherPunks mailing list in a parallel universe (not to be discounted, since some very strange things went on during that period of time), there were more than a few posts between Sandy and the list/list-members in which he spoke openly about the posts which he shitcanned, his (faulty) reasoning behind it, and a variety of other troubling 'rules and regulations' in which 'flameless' posts which made reference to 'flaming' posts, even if not quoting the 'offensive' part (such as 'bad boy!), became 'flames-by-association.' In the end, Sandy was drawing more Crayola lines between the list members than the CypherPunks conspiracy-theory maniacs. {The major difference being that Sandy was using the 'new' colors, which everyone knows are part of the worldwide plot by the underground reptilian Nazis.}
The fact that *you* are constantly accusing people you don't apparently know of engaging in various sexual acts or holding a certain sexual orientation is evidence enough that you are unreliable. It seems to be your stance that you are free to fabricate anything the truth of which cannot be utterly *disproven*.
Been there, done that, stole the T-shirt, and got out of Dodge without getting killed or caught. (Although there are still rumors of Tim May "headed North.") As they say in Texas (or should), "Even a bad shot is right 50% of the time--if he uses a shotgun." Read the News of the Weird, sometime. It uses only 'real' facts from the 'respectable' media and they still manage to paint a much more bizarre picture of reality than even the looniest of CypherPunks.
And if you're simply "throwing rocks" at Sameer with no substance behind your allegations, the rest of us are unlikely to come to your "defense".
Who died and made *you* Chief CypherPunks Spokesperson? (Anonymous? TruthMonger? Nobody?)
Also, here's a little hint (from a non-lawyer): truth is generally a very good defense to a libel suit. You may squirm and dance and claim you don't want to deal with the hassle or expense of a suit, but we all know precisely what that really means...
Yes...and we all disagree, nonetheless. We are getting away from the important issue in this thread, which is that CypherPunks are most effective when engaging in pissing contests and shooting themselves and each other in the foot. This makes the AOL'ers too nervous to stick around long, helps us to work off angry energy which might otherwise cause our hands to shake when working on sensitive nuclear devices, and gives people in the 'Home' more constructive and destructive things to do than sitting around all day cutting out those damned paper dolls. (And boy am I getting tired of that). If you choose to reply to this post, please be polite. I am a very sensitive person, and easily offended. CypherPisser
participants (4)
-
Anonymous -
CypherPisser -
dlv＠bwalk.dm.com -
Jeff Barber