-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi there,

...and saw no point in wasting even more of my time arguing against the New Cypherpunks World Order, as the NCWO was clearly presented as a fait accompli, not something ablut which opinions of list members (or even list _founders_, at least not me) were being sought.

-=> Quoting In:sandfort@crl11.crl.com to Harka <=- In> Factual error #2. There was a call for comment; Tim chose not to In> do so. In retrospect, I wish we had run it by Tim, Eric and In> Hugh in more detail before making the annoucement, but we didn't. In> Certainly a tactical error and a breach of protocol, but not the In> end of the world. Sorry Tim. I should have spoken to you first. Tactical error and breach of protocol, but not the end of the world?? Very weak and dangerous argument. I already hear the Administration saying: "Oh sorry, we didn't tell you about the new wiretaps affecting 50 percent of all phone lines. Certainly a tactical error and a breach of protocol, but HEY, it's _not_ the end of the world! Plus, it's good for you!"

* But the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? If the list was hosted by, say, UC Berkeley or PGP Incorporated, would we consider these hosts to be the "owners" of the Cypherpunks group?...

In> I think this is a Straw Man. John and I have never argued that In> John "owns" cypherpunks. When a Cypherpunk meeting is held in In> someone's living room, however, I don't think it's asking to much In> to ask everyone to follow the local rules (e.g., "no shoes in the In> house" or "no smoking" or even "no ad hominem attacks"). As Tim In> is fond of saying, "my house; my rules." I don't think this In> means Tim "owns" a physical meeting in his house. It really doesn't matter. I do agree, that having a meeting in, let's say, your house, everybody has to submit to the "local rules", i.e. no shoes, no smoking etc.. To avoid those rules means not to go to that location. However, any rules in a certain location do NOT affect speech. While I may enforce the rule for people not to smoke in my house, I can't enforce anything in regards to their speech. The mere try would be counterproductice to having a meeting in the first place. On a mailing list like this one, trying to enforce certain _subjective_ standards is even more counterproductive, especially on the self-proclaimed fore-front of liberty (Cypherpunks). I do agree with TCM, that this is an argument for the very enemies of free speech and neglecting the individual filtering-capabilities of each subscriber. In> no evidence that it has made things worse. Remember, there are a In> hand-full of subscribers to the Flames list, 20-30 on the In> Unedited list and *2000* or so on the Moderated list. Sure some In> of that may be due to laziness, but it would be cavalier in the In> extreme to claim that such an overwhelming acceptance of In> moderation is merely an artifact of inertia. Not necessarely. By subscribing the regular way: <subscribe cypherpunks user@adress.com> one gets on the moderated list by default. It might take (esp. new) people a while to realize, it's moderated. And since it's Cypherpunks, they subscribed to, they don't even _expect_ such things in the first place... I'd do it vice versa, having them subscribe to unedited by default and only if they make the effort (deliberate choice) to get on any kind of moderated version, they can do so by sending a message to majordomo. Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* This user supports FREE SPEECH ONLINE ...more info at */ /* and PRIVATE ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS! --> http://www.eff.org */ /* E-mail: harka@nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail preferred) */ /* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ /* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBMvCiUzltEBIEF0MBAQHYGAf+In7n3Us+4g7GtHTlXynV5f1r1n0kF2/1 KCmMvng05kHUL9c2ucG/oVZAy821quvbbgQNGmEbpkbPQezCFLesWLSQ+SaA0XGm KNC8PqjiqGVHyi0UonhE6z48j0tyt1pbgYFk15nm8pb2ejSR77suXGqDNYKabqu3 MsGnn/JFWlBEArvkSjnQ6Psgs9kqi+6DLsGlKhICkaRGj5/lTfvoLvdW183WqbAt 9SkpJBjBSTFSDc6IuC0oYWZnEvbVMO8KCkOJGjgOxYDCjh5kRzQn6lB2cKXmQmyH KxAfMsTLcHV6AcFAONUKzp+TwaUcw2LA4Eu21NtD3bWo03JeHoCQLA== =f+Ki -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...