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

----------
From:  aga
Sent:  Thursday, November 14, 1996 8:30 AM
To:  freedom-knights@jetcafe.org
Cc:  Dave Hayes; InterNet Freedom Council; Declan McCullagh; 
cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject:  Censor John Gilmore -- EFF is a disgrace!

On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:12:50 -0800 (PST)
> From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
> Reply-To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org
> To: Dave Hayes <dave@kachina.jetcafe.org>
> Cc: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org, cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News 
> 
> I am amused. I gave Dave Hayes about an 8.5 out of 10 on the scale of
> meaningless political rants.
> 

Jealousy rears it's ugly head.  You just wish you had the credibility
that Dave Hayes has.

Declan has no credibility but quite honestly it doesn't seem to
be worth much effort on the Freedom Knight list to debate
the censorous fool.  Let's keep our energies in that regard
to the public forum where exposure to this type of nonsense
will do the most good.


> * "Political safety?" I stand by my record as a writer. Check out
> http://www.eff.org/pub/Publications/Declan_McCullagh/ for some of my
> recent articles. Political safety? Hardly.
> 

This Declan_McCullagh is a long-time cabal.member, so his critique
of a Freedom-Knight like Dave Hayes is to be given short shrift.


And again-he's not worth the effort debating privately.  As far as
the mailing list goes I'm sure we can get forwards from some kind
soul and just post the whole thing publically on usenet for
free and open discussion.


> * Dave says "Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club." 
> Wrong. I never compared the Net to such. However, a mailing list run on a
> computer in someone's home with his own cash is very similar to a private
> club.  There are private speech restrictions on the Net. Gated communities
> exist.  Try to join the "lawprofs" mailing list. You can't; you're not
> (and quite obviously anything but) a law professor. Censorship? Not quite. 
> 

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.


  Well then let's put their precious censored mailing list in 
the public domain.


> * Contrary to what you seem to be asserting, Gilmore hasn't blocked Vulis
> from posting. 
> 
> * Dave warns us to consider "what would happen if one parent company owned
> *all* communications media." Then we have problems. I've written about
> this in an Internet Underground magazine column. However, this is not the
> case now. Or are you arguing the government should get involved and force
> Gilmore to allow Vulis on his list?
> 

No, he is saying that people can use an e-mail filter and not listen
to Vulis if they want to.  It was a very simple thing; are you too
uneducated to know how to use an e-mail filter?


  Any idiot can use an email filter-he knows that.  Again-on our
mailing list he's not worth the effort-let's take the subject and 
their mailing list to usenet.

                                       Steve

> By the way, if you haven't figured it out yet, Mr. "Freedom Knight of
> Usenet,"  a private mailing list is NOT Usenet. Get a clue. 
> 

Wrong!  The cyberpunks mailing list is PUBLIC property and should
NOT be controlled by John Gilmore!  This just goes to show the real
facist censorship motives that the EFF has behind it.

Time to kill the EFF, and let it rot in hell.  They are disgrace
to the entire InterNet community.  I run 6 different mailing lists,
and have NEVER puled the plug on anyone, even when they criticize me.

The first time is the time when you lose all credibility, and there
is never any forgiveness for a plug-puller.


> -Declan
> 

-aga.admin
InterNet Freedom Council
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Dave Hayes wrote:
> 
> > [This is a rebuttal to a misguided news article.]
> > 
> > > Cypher-Censored
> > > By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com)
> > 
> > Thank you for leaving your email address. It makes this easier.
> > 
> > You people (read: the unaware and hypnotized masses, which includes
> > reporters who's desire for attention and political safety holds them
> > in line with the consensual illusion) keep missing the real issue, and
> > substituting issues which only hold themselves in place.
> > 
> > [Those of you who know, please excuse the mediaistic terms used in
> > this rebuttal. One must use the symbols one is given to communicate
> > at the level of understanding of those who use them.]
> > 
> > >        Thus began a debate over what the concept of censorship means in 
a
> > >    forum devoted to opposing it. Did Gilmore have the right to show 
Vulis
> > >    the virtual door? Or should he have let the ad hominem attacks
> > >    continue, encouraging people to set their filters accordingly? The
> > >    incident raises deeper questions about how a virtual community can
> > >    prevent one person from ruining the forum for all and whether only
> > >    government controls on expression can be called "censorship."
> > 
> > "Cyberspace" is interacted with using tools under the control of the
> > interactor. 
> > 

yes, and all you need is a simple mail filter.

> > In person-to-person interaction, one's only real defense against what
> > one decides to call "unwanted" is to remove oneself from the arena of
> > interaction. It may not be possible to ignore or run away from certain
> > sources of input. 
> > 
> > In cyberspace, however, it is not only possible but necessary and even
> > desirable. Cyberspace allows one to interact with many more people
> > then can fit in any given physical space. One simply -cannot- receive
> > input from 2000 people and not employ some sort of filtering
> > mechanism. Indeed, cyberspace has many buttons and switches (and even
> > programmatic filters) which allow one to -completely- control whom one
> > interacts with.
> > 
> > Logically, we must conclude that those who frequently and repeatedly
> > cry for the censorship or removal of any source of input from
> > cyberspace are either:
> > 
> > 	-quite clueless about the tools at their disposal
> > 	-ideologically or personally opposed to the source of input
> > or	-in need of large amounts of attention from others
> > 
> > Cluelessness can be overcome by appropriate teaching and interest in
> > learning (the latter issue we can safely assume users of popular but
> > ineffectual windowing OSes are not able to overcome). Such
> > cluelessness, however, is not and should never be a reason for 
> > censorship.
> > 
> > A need for attention can be overcome by refraining from the denial
> > that the need exists, followed by careful observation of that need. 
> > More can be said on this, but this is not the forum. Such a need
> > is not and should never be a reason for censorship. 
> > 
> > Idelological opposition is another matter entirely. To understand this
> > better, we'll need to observe this in action. Here is an example:
> > 
> > >        Vulis portrays himself as a victim, but as I posted to the list
> > >    last week, I disagree. Anyone who's spent any time on the
> > >    100-plus-messages-a-day list can read for themselves the kind of 
nasty
> > >    daily messages that came from Vulis's keyboard. 
> > 
> > "Nasty" is, of course, by this reporter's standard of "nasty". Granted
> > this standard may in fact be shared by Mr. Gilmore, however a shared
> > standard is not necessarily an appropriate or correct standard. 
> > 
> > >    The list is on Gilmore's machine and he can do what he wants with
> > >    it; he can moderate the postings, he can censor material, he can
> > >    shut the whole thing down. By kicking off an offending user, a
> > >    list owner merely exercises his property right. There's no
> > >    government involvement, so the First Amendment doesn't apply. And
> > >    the deleted, disgruntled user is free to start his own mailing
> > >    list with different rules.
> > 
> > Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization
> > begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership.
> > Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you
> > don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice
> > how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain
> > American patriotic organizations?)
> > 
> > What would ideological opposition be without the attempt at analogy? 
> > Here we witness another example:
> > 
> > >        But then the question is whether Gilmore should have exercised
> > >    that right, especially in such an open forum. Again, I think 
Gilmore's
> > >    actions were justified. Consider inviting someone into your home or
> > >    private club. If your guest is a boor, you might ask him to leave. If
> > >    your guest is an slobbish drunk of a boor, you have a responsibility
> > >    to require him to leave before he ruins the evening of others.
> > 
> > Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club. Actually
> > the net is neither, however that would not serve the purposes of this
> > analogy, so this fact is convienently forgotton. 
> > 
> > The net is a wonderful place. Any ideology, no matter who disagrees or
> > agrees with it, can be expressed and discussed here...assuming those
> > who oppose this ideology do not have their way with the source of
> > expression. There is a more refined and deeper truth to be found
> > in the very existence of the set of all human ideologies, which is
> > just beginning to show itself to some netizens. Unfortunately, this
> > truth can be ruined when people equate some notion of value to 
> > sources which ignore all but a tiny subset of the set of all ideologies:
> > 
> > >        Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, runs a number of mailing
> > >    lists and has kicked people off to maintain better editorial control.
> > >    Volokh says that the most valuable publications are those that
> > >    exercise the highest degree of editorial control.
> > 
> > Value to whom and for what? If the editorial control produces one
> > small element of the set of all ideologies, then this is only of value
> > to the people who support this ideology. Given that the set of 
> > people who support an issue is smaller than the set of people
> > who support and oppose an issue, would the value not increase
> > by allowing both sides of an issue equal speaking time? 
> > 
> > >        For his part, Gilmore calls removing the Russian mathematician 
"an
> > >    act of leadership." He says: "It said we've all been putting up with
> > >    this guy and it's time to stop. You're not welcome here... It seemed
> > >    to me that a lot of the posts on cypherpunks were missing the mark.
> > >    They seemed to have an idea that their ability to speak through my
> > >    machine was guaranteed by the Constitution."
> > 
> > It is sad to note that this is the leader of one of America's
> > forerunning organizations of freedom who says these words. For all
> > *his* ideology of free speech, this statement reveals the hypocrasy he
> > lives with for all to see. The true litmus test of free speech is to
> > encounter speech that you *want* to censor.
> > 
> > Mr. Gilmore, and other like minded parties, might want to consider
> > what would happen if one parent company owned *all* communications
> > media. Would they they be so supportive of the ideology of ownership
> > and communciation they espouse?

Indeed.  The EFF is a disgrace to the entire InterNet.
The EFF is definitely a censorship organization, and
it should never be trusted again.

> > ------
> > Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org 
> > Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
> > 
> > Truth (n.) - the most deadly weapon ever discovered by humanity. Capable 
> > of destroying entire perceptual sets, cultures, and realities. Outlawed 
> > by all governments everywhere. Possession is normally punishable by death.
> > 
> > 
>

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.
> 
It's not an abuse of power. It was an effort to curtail inappropriate
SPAM. Much like this entire topic has become non-crypto SPAM on the
cypherpunks list. 
> 
>   Well then let's put their precious censored mailing list in 
> the public domain.

Hmm, above that you tried to argue that it wasn't a list, but a
"public forum", logicly then you state that it is allready in
the "public domain". Then you turn around and say it isn't, and
should be taken from a private forum into the "public domain".
Perhaps if you stopped ranting, you might realize your mistake. 

> 
> 
> Wrong!  The cyberpunks mailing list is PUBLIC property and should
> NOT be controlled by John Gilmore!  This just goes to show the real
> facist censorship motives that the EFF has behind it.

Ahh, but you previously said it wasn't public property. 
That aside, just because you say it is, doesn't mean it's so. Now
I realize that up there at MonopolySoft, that sort of logic actually
works, but in the real world it doesn't. The content may very well be
"public property" as such, but the list itself, and where it resides
are not public property. 

> 
> Time to kill the EFF, and let it rot in hell.  They are disgrace
> to the entire InterNet community.  I run 6 different mailing lists,
> and have NEVER puled the plug on anyone, even when they criticize me.

Please, the EFF is NOT a Cypherpunks organization. They may share
some of the same goals, but they arn't the same. This should be obvious
to even the most logicly deficient. 
Oh, and it's spelled "internet", and when use inside a sentance, it isn't
capitolized, no matter what Bill tells you. And if you pulled the plug
on any of your 6 lists, the members would have the option of reforming
another list someplace else, but it would be YOUR OPTION to pull the
plug, unless you were "only" the adminstrator, and not the list "owner".
John owns the list in the classic sense. (Ok I realize I may have lost
you there Mr. "InterNet", but the way it works is that either organizations
or individuals own lists, in this case it's an individual.)

> 
> The first time is the time when you lose all credibility, and there
> is never any forgiveness for a plug-puller.
> 

All bullshit aside, this whole thing has NOTHING to do with crypto.
And it has very VERY little to do with censorship either. And it's
gotten way, way out of hand. I suggest that it might be better not
to spam cypherpunks with this stuff, and to give it a rest. Between
the 2 lists & various people I see represented here, with all due &
serious respect, you folks have GOT to have better, more important,
and far more deserving issues to devote your time to. I would hope
that you would take a few moments and think about those things, and
consider acting appropriatly in light of those thoughts.

Tim Scanlon

On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, Tim Scanlon wrote:

> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 05:24:56 -0500 (EST)
> From: Tim Scanlon <tfs@adsl-122.cais.com>
> To: Stephen Boursy <rent_control@msn.com>
> Cc: aga@dhp.com, freedom-knights@jetcafe.org, cypherpunks@toad.com,
>     dave@kachina.jetcafe.org, declan@well.com, ifc@pgh.org
> Subject: Re: Censor John Gilmore -- EFF is a disgrace!
> 
> 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.
> > 
> It's not an abuse of power. It was an effort to curtail inappropriate
> SPAM. Much like this entire topic has become non-crypto SPAM on the
> cypherpunks list. 
> > 

No it was not SPAM.  John Gilmore attacked Vulis's style, plain
and simple.  Next time I see John GilMore, I will call him a
censorous motherfucker in public.

> >   Well then let's put their precious censored mailing list in 
> > the public domain.
> 
> Hmm, above that you tried to argue that it wasn't a list, but a
> "public forum", logicly then you state that it is allready in
> the "public domain". Then you turn around and say it isn't, and
> should be taken from a private forum into the "public domain".
> Perhaps if you stopped ranting, you might realize your mistake. 
> 

You missed the whole fucking point, and I ain't going
to waste time saying it again.

> > 
> > 
> > Wrong!  The cyberpunks mailing list is PUBLIC property and should
> > NOT be controlled by John Gilmore!  This just goes to show the real
> > facist censorship motives that the EFF has behind it.
> 
> Ahh, but you previously said it wasn't public property. 
> That aside, just because you say it is, doesn't mean it's so. Now
> I realize that up there at MonopolySoft, that sort of logic actually
> works, but in the real world it doesn't. The content may very well be
> "public property" as such, but the list itself, and where it resides
> are not public property. 
> 
> > 
> > Time to kill the EFF, and let it rot in hell.  They are disgrace
> > to the entire InterNet community.  I run 6 different mailing lists,
> > and have NEVER puled the plug on anyone, even when they criticize me.
> 
> Please, the EFF is NOT a Cypherpunks organization. They may share
> some of the same goals, but they arn't the same. This should be obvious
> to even the most logicly deficient. 
> Oh, and it's spelled "internet", 

No it is not, asshole!  That is the old way of doing things.
It is NOW and always will be the "InterNet" -- I helped build the
motherfucker in 1969, I should know.


and when use inside a sentance, it isn't
> capitolized, no matter what Bill tells you. 

No, it is capitalized, because Grubor tells you.
The name is the GruBoursyNet.

> And if you pulled the plug
> on any of your 6 lists, the members would have the option of reforming
> another list someplace else, but it would be YOUR OPTION to pull the
> plug, unless you were "only" the adminstrator, and not the list "owner".
> John owns the list in the classic sense. (Ok I realize I may have lost
> you there Mr. "InterNet", but the way it works is that either organizations
> or individuals own lists, in this case it's an individual.)
> 
> > 
> > The first time is the time when you lose all credibility, and there
> > is never any forgiveness for a plug-puller.
> > 
> 
> All bullshit aside, this whole thing has NOTHING to do with crypto.
> And it has very VERY little to do with censorship either. And it's
> gotten way, way out of hand. I suggest that it might be better not
> to spam cypherpunks with this stuff, and to give it a rest. Between

I never would join that mailing list, because it is all a bunch
of shit.  The EFF must die, and that is all there is to it.

> the 2 lists & various people I see represented here, with all due &
> serious respect, you folks have GOT to have better, more important,
> and far more deserving issues to devote your time to. I would hope
> that you would take a few moments and think about those things, and
> consider acting appropriatly in light of those thoughts.
> 
> Tim Scanlon
> 

Look Tim, you ain't even on the IFC or the F-K lists, so
what the fuck do you care anyway?  Just go publish this shit
on UseNet, like Mr. Boursy says you should do, and stop
bothering our mailing lists.

Stupid pervert cabal.cocksucker, I bet.

Does John Gilmore suck tale's cock, too?

-aga

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, aga wrote:

> The cyberpunks mailing list is PUBLIC property and should NOT
> be controlled by John Gilmore!  This just goes to show the real
> facist censorship motives that the EFF has behind it.

I have a suggestion for "Aga" and others who believe this sort of
nonsense.  Please do us all a favor and try to sue John.  I'm sure 
that among all jack-leg and wannabe lawyers on this list that they
can come up with a viable cause of action.  And John has deep 
pockets; you could (literally) make out like bandits AND rescue 
"freedom of speech" on privately maintained mailing lists.  You 
could be heroes (or look ten times as foolish as you already do).


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, Sandy Sandfort wrote:

> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 08:37:14 -0800 (PST)
> From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
> To: aga <aga@dhp.com>
> Cc: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks@toad.com>
> Subject: Re: Does John Gilmore...
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>                           SANDY SANDFORT
>  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 
> C'punks,
> 
> On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, aga wrote:
> 
> > The cyberpunks mailing list is PUBLIC property and should NOT
> > be controlled by John Gilmore!  This just goes to show the real
> > facist censorship motives that the EFF has behind it.
> 
> I have a suggestion for "Aga" and others who believe this sort of
> nonsense.  Please do us all a favor and try to sue John.  I'm sure 
> that among all jack-leg and wannabe lawyers on this list that they
> can come up with a viable cause of action.  And John has deep 
> pockets; you could (literally) make out like bandits AND rescue 
> "freedom of speech" on privately maintained mailing lists.  You 
> could be heroes (or look ten times as foolish as you already do).
> 
> 
>  S a n d y
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 

fuck you dumb cunt.  I told you to leave that list off of your
fucking headers -- you just do not listen, do you?

Anybody that supports John Gilmore is an asshole bitch or cocksucker
one of the two.

out.

-a

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks and others,

On Sun, 17 Nov 1996, aga wrote:

> > I have a suggestion for "Aga" and others who believe this sort of
> > nonsense.  Please do us all a favor and try to sue John.  I'm sure 
> > that among all jack-leg and wannabe lawyers on this list that they
> > can come up with a viable cause of action.  And John has deep 
> > pockets; you could (literally) make out like bandits AND rescue 
> > "freedom of speech" on privately maintained mailing lists.  You 
> > could be heroes (or look ten times as foolish as you already do).

> fuck you dumb cunt. 

Boy, have you got a wrong number.  

> I told you to leave that list off of your fucking headers --
> you just do not listen, do you?

You sure have a problem with free speech, don't you?  I read what
you wrote and ignored it.  I sure feel sorry for any woman who
gets involved with me ("I SAID, get me a beer, bitch!)
 
> Anybody that supports John Gilmore is an asshole bitch or
> cocksucker one of the two.

Yet I am neither.  Perhaps you are in error.

Bye,


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Sun, 17 Nov 1996, aga wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> 
> > Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 08:37:14 -0800 (PST)
> > From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
> > To: aga <aga@dhp.com>
> > Cc: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks@toad.com>
> > Subject: Re: Does John Gilmore...
> > 
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >                           SANDY SANDFORT
> >  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> > 
> > C'punks,
> > 
> > On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, aga wrote:
> > 
> > > The cyberpunks mailing list is PUBLIC property and should NOT
> > > be controlled by John Gilmore!  This just goes to show the real
> > > facist censorship motives that the EFF has behind it.
> > 
> > I have a suggestion for "Aga" and others who believe this sort of
> > nonsense.  Please do us all a favor and try to sue John.  I'm sure 
> > that among all jack-leg and wannabe lawyers on this list that they
> > can come up with a viable cause of action.  And John has deep 
> > pockets; you could (literally) make out like bandits AND rescue 
> > "freedom of speech" on privately maintained mailing lists.  You 
> > could be heroes (or look ten times as foolish as you already do).
> > 
> > 
> >  S a n d y
> > 
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > 
> 
> fuck you dumb cunt.  I told you to leave that list off of your
> fucking headers -- you just do not listen, do you?

So this great defender of free speech seeks to silence it?  Why not just 
let listmembers use filters?  Those who disapprove of John 
Gilmore's action argue that he should have done that, although you seem 
to believe that the argument doesn't apply when someone fouls your nest. 
John's action wasjustified in my view, although I believe courtesy 
should have caused him to notify Vulis that he was out ... and for all 
the heat he has taken, John should've prevented him from posting to the list.

Regardless of what good he may have done in the past, Vulis was (and is) 
engaged in an enormously egotistical disply of bad manners and off-topic 
posting.  Having just installed Eudora Pro 3.0, I know that I can easily 
filter him out, but have hesitated to use filters in the past.  Vulis may 
be the one to push me over the edge.

I'm especially sorry that some of you don't believe in property rights.  
Some have argued that the list is now a public forum -- apparently 
primarily because a lot of people are listmembers.  This confiscation of 
private property would, I thought, be inimical to the cypherpunks general 
philosophy (to the extent one exists).  I'm sure Louis Freeh will be 
pleased to know that you believe in such confiscation.  With email 
being used by so many people and because it traverses some publicly owned 
sites, you certainly cannot argue that it is not a public forum -- if 
cypherpunks is.  So GAK should be OK, because it is simply an attempt to 
broaden the audience for speech, right?  And, in any event, the 
government could choose to ignore property rights and confiscate the 
speech, as you seek to do with John's privately owned list.

Just because you don't get your way, doesn't mean that what happened was 
illegal or even wrong.  Your authoritarian views would do Stalin proud.

EBD
 
> Anybody that supports John Gilmore is an asshole bitch or cocksucker
> one of the two.

Beautiful use of language.

> 
> out.
> 
> -a
> 
>

At 7:55 PM -0500 11/17/96, Brian Davis wrote:

>Regardless of what good he may have done in the past, Vulis was (and is)
>engaged in an enormously egotistical disply of bad manners and off-topic
>posting.  Having just installed Eudora Pro 3.0, I know that I can easily
>filter him out, but have hesitated to use filters in the past.  Vulis may
>be the one to push me over the edge.

I've been using Eudora for several years, and Pro since it came out. I
heavily use filters to sort the various mailing lists into their own
folders, so it's natural enough to filter a few names into "Twit" or
"Trash" folders. I do sometimes look over what's in these folders before
emptying them; the status of the messages helps to remind me not to respond
to them, even if I happen to look at them. With Vulis and aga spewing so
much bile, I'm increasingly tempted to empty the trash before even
beginning to read my messages, to remove any temptation to monitor what
they're saying.

I think Gilmore made a tactical error, with predictable effects. But I've
also tried to stay out of either the piling-on or the defense of John.

>primarily because a lot of people are listmembers.  This confiscation of
>private property would, I thought, be inimical to the cypherpunks general
>philosophy (to the extent one exists).  I'm sure Louis Freeh will be
>pleased to know that you believe in such confiscation.  With email

I know you mean this as a jibe (invoking the name of the Great Enemy as the
ally of one's enemy). Even opponents of GAK and Freeh in general don't hold
that Freeh supports confiscation of private property (except in RICO cases,
drug case forfeitures, or when illegal religions are practicing in Waco, or
when...well, maybe he _does_, now that I think about it! :-))


>Just because you don't get your way, doesn't mean that what happened was
>illegal or even wrong.  Your authoritarian views would do Stalin proud.
>

Good sentiments for an ex-prosecutor!

(Again, I should clarify. I doubt many prosecutors are
authoritarian-minded, politically. I even doubt many of them would support
GAK and mandatory key escrow...wait until their own communications are
GAKked, wait until they realize that attorney-client electronic
transmissions are GAKked, with no certainty that  the other side has not
used various national security or whatever justifications for peeking....I
think even the prosecutors of the country will feel some strong civil
libertarian twinges.)

While I don't believe many people in government are "evil" or have "bad
intentions," I'm a strong believer that _systemic_ or _institutional_ evil
is possible. Thus, the wide opposition to mandatory key escrow, just as
civil libertarians of all stripes would oppose mandatory tatooing of
national I.D. barcodes on arms, or the mandatory retro-fitting of all homes
with special curtains containing a police-accessible "transparency mode."

Domestic rules about crypto--when they come, perhaps as early as in the
next several years, depending on external events and on the political
climate--will trigger huge constitutional challenges. Much bigger than the
Bernstein and Junger cases. Maybe bigger than the CDA case.

--Tim May


"The government announcement is disastrous," said Jim Bidzos,.."We warned IBM
that the National Security Agency would try to twist their technology."
[NYT, 1996-10-02]
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: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

aga <aga@dhp.com> writes:

> > It's not an abuse of power. It was an effort to curtail inappropriate
> > SPAM. Much like this entire topic has become non-crypto SPAM on the
> > cypherpunks list.
>
> No it was not SPAM.  John Gilmore attacked Vulis's style, plain
> and simple.  Next time I see John GilMore, I will call him a
> censorous motherfucker in public.

Thank you, Dr. Grubor. I fully agree with your assessment of John Gilmore.
Note that the claim that I write "SPAM" (in capital letters) is a lie, and
probably actionable.

> > Please, the EFF is NOT a Cypherpunks organization. They may share

Neither has any credibility anymore.

> > some of the same goals, but they arn't the same. This should be obvious
> > to even the most logicly deficient.
> > Oh, and it's spelled "internet",
>
> No it is not, asshole!  That is the old way of doing things.
> It is NOW and always will be the "InterNet" -- I helped build the
> motherfucker in 1969, I should know.

Thank you, Dr. Grubor, for your monumental contributions.

> and when use inside a sentance, it isn't
> > capitolized, no matter what Bill tells you.
         ^
>
> No, it is capitalized, because Grubor tells you.
> The name is the GruBoursyNet.

Yes - the self-appointed censor can't even spell. What a maroon.

> > And if you pulled the plug
> > on any of your 6 lists, the members would have the option of reforming
> > another list someplace else, but it would be YOUR OPTION to pull the
> > plug, unless you were "only" the adminstrator, and not the list "owner".
> > John owns the list in the classic sense. (Ok I realize I may have lost
> > you there Mr. "InterNet", but the way it works is that either organizations
> > or individuals own lists, in this case it's an individual.)

Of course it's John's right to censor his own mailing list. He does too.

> > > The first time is the time when you lose all credibility, and there
> > > is never any forgiveness for a plug-puller.
> >
> > All bullshit aside, this whole thing has NOTHING to do with crypto.
> > And it has very VERY little to do with censorship either. And it's
> > gotten way, way out of hand. I suggest that it might be better not
> > to spam cypherpunks with this stuff, and to give it a rest. Between
>
> I never would join that mailing list, because it is all a bunch
> of shit.  The EFF must die, and that is all there is to it.

The EFF can continue to exist as a reminder of how corporate interests
try to misappropriate the appearance of defending free speech while in
fact engaging in plug-pulling and censorship.

> Stupid pervert cabal.cocksucker, I bet.

Most definitely.

> Does John Gilmore suck tale's cock, too?

I wouldn't be surprised the least bit. Many unhappy customers of Cygnus
Support have found out that the only requirement for being hired by Cugnus
is to be gay; it doesn't matter whether you know anything about the product
you're supposed to support. Thus, Cygnus rips off not only the software
writers (who put their software on the Internet for everyone to use, not
for John Gilmore to get rich(er) with), but also their gullible customers.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Tim Scanlon <tfs@adsl-122.cais.com> writes:

> 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.
> >
> It's not an abuse of power. It was an effort to curtail inappropriate
> SPAM. Much like this entire topic has become non-crypto SPAM on the
> cypherpunks list.

I wonder how John Gilmore and his pals define "SPAM"? (always capitalized)
Is their definition content-based (e.g., any information criticial of EFF/
Usenet Cabal), or is it self-referential - any information that EFF wants
to suppress through forged cancels and plug-pulling is therefore SPAM and
must be suppressed?

> >   Well then let's put their precious censored mailing list in
> > the public domain.
>
> Hmm, above that you tried to argue that it wasn't a list, but a
> "public forum", logicly then you state that it is allready in
> the "public domain". Then you turn around and say it isn't, and
> should be taken from a private forum into the "public domain".
> Perhaps if you stopped ranting, you might realize your mistake.

There only people ranting here are Timmy May, John Gilmore, and their
supporters. Their position was summarised very well by the lying shyster
Jim Ray: he already killfiled whatever he doesn't like, so he doesn't
see it, but he wants to suppress it so others can't see it either.

> > Time to kill the EFF, and let it rot in hell.  They are disgrace
> > to the entire InterNet community.  I run 6 different mailing lists,
> > and have NEVER puled the plug on anyone, even when they criticize me.
>
> Please, the EFF is NOT a Cypherpunks organization. They may share
> some of the same goals, but they arn't the same. This should be obvious
> to even the most logicly deficient.

EFF has some laudable goals: let the pornography vendors peddle their
wares on the 'net. Unfortunately they're opposed to free speech in general,
as reiterated by John Gilmore quoted by Declan Mcculough. Too bad - but
then EFF never really pretended to promote free speech for anyone other
than its corporate contributors. (It's sort of like the Software Publishers
Association, who doesn't really care of anyone pirates the software sold
by non-members.)

> > The first time is the time when you lose all credibility, and there
> > is never any forgiveness for a plug-puller.
> >
>
> All bullshit aside, this whole thing has NOTHING to do with crypto.
> And it has very VERY little to do with censorship either. And it's
> gotten way, way out of hand. I suggest that it might be better not
> to spam cypherpunks with this stuff, and to give it a rest. Between
> the 2 lists & various people I see represented here, with all due &
> serious respect, you folks have GOT to have better, more important,
> and far more deserving issues to devote your time to. I would hope
> that you would take a few moments and think about those things, and
> consider acting appropriatly in light of those thoughts.

John Gilmore's censorship has gotten way out of hand. Dr. Grubor is not
spamming anyone - you are lying, and your repeated lies will soon earn
you as much "negative crediblity" and John Gilmore's.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

Tim Scanlon 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.

> It's not an abuse of power. It was an effort to curtail inappropriate
> SPAM. Much like this entire topic has become non-crypto SPAM on the
> cypherpunks list.

[snippo]

> Oh, and it's spelled "internet", and when use inside a sentance, it isn't
> capitolized, no matter what Bill tells you.

Tim is criticizing whom?
Tim, it's spelled "sentence", with an "e".
Tim, it's spelled "capitalized", with an "a".

> And if you pulled the plug
> on any of your 6 lists, the members would have the option of reforming
> another list someplace else, but it would be YOUR OPTION to pull the
> plug, unless you were "only" the adminstrator, and not the list "owner".
> John owns the list in the classic sense. (Ok I realize I may have lost
> you there Mr. "InterNet", but the way it works is that either organizations
> or individuals own lists, in this case it's an individual.)

Speaking of "classis sense", this is yet another bunch of drivel which
says nothing but implies that ownership of the machinery allows the
"owner" to exercise rights over the messages and the messagers.

> All bullshit aside, this whole thing has NOTHING to do with crypto.
> And it has very VERY little to do with censorship either. And it's
> gotten way, way out of hand. I suggest that it might be better not
> to spam cypherpunks with this stuff, and to give it a rest.

Do you talk to yourself a lot, bud?  Why should anyone give a damn what
you think about whether they are on-topic or not, or what they choose to
do with their time? Why don't you go read up on some of these things and
contribute something useful instead?

BTW, I think appropriately is spelled with an "e".

> 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.

    Ignore him.

Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com