Re: Censor John Gilmore -- EFF is a disgrace!

At 12:07 ðì 17/11/1996 -0600, snow wrote:
>> Stephen Boursy wrote, along with a horde of others with no lives:
>> [lots of worthless crap snipped out]
>> > None of that analogy is applicable to the cyberpunks list.
>> > When a list gets as big as that, it it no longer to be considered
>> > a "mailing-list" but it is a _public_ forum.  The whole problem
>> > here is the abuse of power by both the EFF and John Gilmore.
>
>    Boursy is a twit who has lost more accounts that Vulis.

In this case, I'd quote a poet who said
"I am not sorry for the poets who were left without an audience,
 I am sorry for the audiences who were left without any poets".

I would suggest that it is not at all a "safe" indication of personal
or intellectual _worth_, (of Mr. Boursy or of anyone) "how many
accounts he has lost".

For two reasons:
(1)  As I read Mr. Boursy's postings, I see no indication that he is
     either deranged, or evil, or lacking sanity or maturity. If he
     had these qualities, they'd sooner or later show up inside the F-K
     list, to which I subscribe for several months (nearly a year?).

(2)  The situation inside the "less official" side of thje Internet,
     at the moment (aka mailing lists) is so notoriously repressive
     that perhaps a _minority_ of mailing lists do not indulge in
     so-called "forcible unsubscriptions". E.g. what about the "Orgonomy
     mailing list" kicked out an eloquent critic of its owner (Dr.
     Demeo) (can find all names and details if you like) just because
     he opposed Dr. Demeo's "experiments" in an Israeli desert which
     (allegedly, according to the critic) resulted in people's deaths.
     I mention this case, because I was present there, and because
     (just like the "Cypherpunks" list) it was directly or indirectly
     related to issues of Freedom ("Orgonomy" being the "Alternative
     Psychology" of a rather unconventional thinker called Wilhelm Reich
     who died in an American jail after the McCarthian State framed him).




>    Ignore him.

It is not ethical to send such strong negative _injunctions_ to masses
of people and also to strangers (the 1900-strong members of the cyberphunks
list for instance). Because, you may or may not have strong reasons for
believing you are justified in such invalidation, but more than a 1000
people are now _told_ by (self-appointed) "experts" such as yourself what
and whom to ignore or to believe. (Like sheep led to the slaughter)...

This was my objection also inside the F-K list, for _some_ of the postings
in the past, but none of these postings was connected with acts of
censorship, or with "sweeping generalisations" without evidence. On several
occasions that I searched and found who or what they were talking about,
I discovered they were talking about people whose activities were indeed
horrifying (forged cancellations etc) and who also fought back.

But what you are doing now, extending the "1-person-blacklist" to your
number-two-entry (Mr. Boursy) is exactly the thing that I hoped you might
avoid.


        First they kicked out Dimitri Vulis.
        
        Then they slandered and kept out Steve Boursy.
        
        Then...
        
        When they came after me, there was nobody left to support me.


(You can perhaps realize what this paraphrase is about)... :-(


Sincerily, and with... Sanity of Mind :-)
George Stathis

George A. Stathis wrote:
> 
> At 12:07 ðì 17/11/1996 -0600, snow wrote:
>>
>>    Boursy is a twit who has lost more accounts that Vulis.


  I've lost but one account--world.std.com (Software Tool &
Die) soon to be purchased by the conglomorate Plug Pullers
R US.  That was entirely related to a local rent control
matter.  Now I may be a 'twit'--that is an entirely
different matter.

 
> I would suggest that it is not at all a "safe" indication of personal
> or intellectual _worth_, (of Mr. Boursy or of anyone) "how many
> accounts he has lost".

   I would say though that if one makes false statements as has
this 'snow' character it indicates a lack of credibiltiy.

 
>>    Ignore him.

  Something you seem unable to do.  Isn't it odd how some will
tell you how insignificant and irrelevant you are only to devote
so much of their time and energy to you.  I find that very odd.

 
> It is not ethical to send such strong negative _injunctions_ to masses
> of people and also to strangers (the 1900-strong members of the cyberphunks
> list for instance). 

  Well thanks George but I do think his statement speak for themselves.
I'm not in the least concerned someone like him could harm me--in fact
I find it very amusing that he is deemed 'acceptable for that list
while Dr. Vulis is not.

> Because, you may or may not have strong reasons for
> believing you are justified in such invalidation, but more than a 1000
> people are now _told_ by (self-appointed) "experts" such as yourself what
> and whom to ignore or to believe. (Like sheep led to the slaughter)...


   Well that's sort of like Tiny Tim Skirvin and his Global Killfile--
it does him more harm than those he is after--in fact little Tim reads
my every word.

 
> But what you are doing now, extending the "1-person-blacklist" to your
> number-two-entry (Mr. Boursy) is exactly the thing that I hoped you might
> avoid.

  And based on lies as well--I've only had one account terminated--that
by Barry Shein who lives in Brookline, Ma. and that was entirely do
to real estate industry money and the rent control issue (a statewide
referrendum on rent control which existed only in Brookline, Cambridge,
and Boston)--many millions of dollars at stake there.  Shein is simply
a whore.
 
>         First they kicked out Dimitri Vulis.
> 
>         Then they slandered and kept out Steve Boursy.

  Well my suggestion--given the size of the list and that we have
numerous sympathizers there--is to have all of their posts forwarded
and publically post them for free and open discussion.

                            Steve


> 
>         Then...
> 
>         When they came after me, there was nobody left to support me.
> 
> (You can perhaps realize what this paraphrase is about)... :-(
> 
> Sincerily, and with... Sanity of Mind :-)
> George Stathis

George A. Stathis wrote:
> 
> This was my objection also inside the F-K list, for _some_ of the postings
> in the past, but none of these postings was connected with acts of
> censorship, or with "sweeping generalisations" without evidence. On several
> occasions that I searched and found who or what they were talking about,
> I discovered they were talking about people whose activities were indeed
> horrifying (forged cancellations etc) and who also fought back.

Horrifying eh? Hmm I found this just a bit to priceless to resist.
I guess it falls under the old 'but I'll defend your right...' way
of looking at things...

In any case, here you go, this is the latest contribution of software
from Dimitri to the values of freedom of expression and non-censoring
& all that blather.

#From Phrack 49, file p49-09 published this month:
                            .oO Phrack Magazine Oo.

                        Volume Seven, Issue Forty-Nine
                        
                                 File 09 of 16

                          by Dr.Dimitri Vulis (KOTM)

               A Content-Blind Cancelbot for Usenet (CBCB)

And what follows, is Dr. Dimitri, defender of freedom of expression,
champion of the anti-censors on the net, posting code to the world to
engage in exactly those activities that everyone has been ranting about
as being so utterly "horrifying (forged cancellations etc)" as it were.

Amusing to say the least.

Tim