Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list

[Dale Thorn]

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).