Re: Dr. Vulis is not on cypherpunks any more

> Well put!  I tired a long time ago of Dr. Vulis and several others on this
> list.  Rather than bitch about it or resort to the same big brother
> gestapo-censor bullshit we profess to abhor I simply utilized the extensive
> filtering capability of Eudora.
> 
> I don't need "big brother" or big "cypherpunk" censoring my mail for me.
> We have become what we fear the most.  How prophetic and pathetic.

Absolutely,

John, if you, and those who support your actions, claim to be 
libertarians you need to take a good hard look at what you have done.

This is a distinctly "big cypherpunkish" move and really cannot be 
condoned even bearing in mind the inane and wearisome behaviour of 
Dr. Vulis.


 

  Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote:
> 
> John, if you, and those who support your actions, claim to be
> libertarians you need to take a good hard look at what you have 
> done.

John owns toad.com.  John can do what he wants to with it.  End of
story.

> This is a distinctly "big cypherpunkish" move 

Hogwash.  "Big cypherpunkish".  Snort.  Like exclusion from the cp
list has some actual societal import.

> and really cannot be condoned 

I hereby condone it.

______c_________________________________________________________________
Mike M Nally * IBM % Tivoli * Austin TX  * How quickly we forget that
mailto:m5@tivoli.com mailto:m101@io.com  * "deer processing" and "data
http://www.io.com/~m101/                 * processing" are different!

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

C'punks,

On Sun, 3 Nov 1996 paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote:

> John, if you, and those who support your actions, claim to be 
> libertarians you need to take a good hard look at what you have
> done.

The core basis of libertarianism, the non-aggression principle,
is usually expressed something like this:

"No one has the right to initiate force for fraud against another."

Perhaps Paul would be so kind as to tell us how he believes John 
has violated this standard.


 S a n d y

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

Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> C'punks,
> On Sun, 3 Nov 1996 paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote:
> 
> > John, if you, and those who support your actions, claim to be 
> > libertarians you need to take a good hard look at what you have
> > done.
> 
> The core basis of libertarianism, the non-aggression principle,
> is usually expressed something like this:
> 
> "No one has the right to initiate force for fraud against another."
> 
> Perhaps Paul would be so kind as to tell us how he believes John 
> has violated this standard.
> 

Unsubscribed him by force?

	- Igor.

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

C'punks,

On Tue, 5 Nov 1996 ichudov@algebra.com wrote:

> Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> > The core basis of libertarianism, the non-aggression principle,
> > is usually expressed something like this:
> > 
> > "No one has the right to initiate force for fraud against another."
> > 
> > Perhaps Paul would be so kind as to tell us how he believes John 
> > has violated this standard.
> > 
> 
> Unsubscribed him by force?

Obviously not, unless one wishes to completely distort the 
meaning of the word.  The /reducto ad absurdum/ implied by 
Igor's question would say that when a volunteer stopped 
volunteering his services, he was initiating force against his
former beneficiaries.


 S a n d y

	"English, it's not just for school anymore."

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

paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > Well put!  I tired a long time ago of Dr. Vulis and several others on this
> > list.  Rather than bitch about it or resort to the same big brother
> > gestapo-censor bullshit we profess to abhor I simply utilized the extensive
> > filtering capability of Eudora.
> > 
> > I don't need "big brother" or big "cypherpunk" censoring my mail for me.
> > We have become what we fear the most.  How prophetic and pathetic.
> 
> John, if you, and those who support your actions, claim to be 
> libertarians you need to take a good hard look at what you have done.
> 
> This is a distinctly "big cypherpunkish" move and really cannot be 
> condoned even bearing in mind the inane and wearisome behaviour of 
> Dr. Vulis.

I guess libertarian philosophy permits operating a private mailing
list and imposing whatever rules the host deems necessary to invent.

The question is, can this ist be called a free medium for exchange of
ideas, or not. My answer is no.

Moderated forums might create some utility (by saving the time of their
participants, for example), but they should identify themselves as such.

	- Igor.

On Sun, 3 Nov 1996 13:15:24 +0000, paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote:

>John, if you, and those who support your actions, claim to be 
>libertarians you need to take a good hard look at what you have done.

I'm in the "those who support" category.  I don't give a damn whether
Dimitri is on the list or not, I can filter if I want to, but since
John's paying for it, he can kick people off, moderate it, forge and
edit posts, or whatever he wants.  Digital signatures can prevent (or
at least detect) some of this (but he could strip the signatures, of
course) and I imagine the list wouldn't last long (would move
elsewhere) if he did this, but it would not be "anti-libertarian"
(dishonest, maybe).  The anti-libertarian side is that of those
list-members who think they have some sort of right to use John's
equipment as they please, for free, and complain when he disagrees.
Well, tough.  He's right and you're wrong.

If you don't like the way John runs the list, there's a very simple
solution: set up your own list, using _your_ computer, and run it the
way you think it should be run.  It sounds like a lot of the people on
this list would prefer your way (the same people, presumably, who
would like to borrow your car without asking, or spend a couple of
months holidaying in your house...)

>This is a distinctly "big cypherpunkish" move and really cannot be 
>condoned even bearing in mind the inane and wearisome behaviour of 
>Dr. Vulis.

Nonsense.  John Gilmore is not censoring anyone's mail.  He can't
possibly censor your mail (unless he runs your ISP...but then you can
always move to another ISP).  You're free to correspond with Dimitri
to your hearts content, and John has nothing to say about it...unless
you try to make him pay for it.  [If you think differently, please let
me know.  I'll be quite happy to tell my ISP to send my bills to you!
:-)]

-- 
Paul Foley <mycroft@actrix.gen.nz>       ---         PGPmail preferred

	   PGP key ID 0x1CA3386D available from keyservers
    fingerprint = 4A 76 83 D8 99 BC ED 33  C5 02 81 C9 BF 7A 91 E8
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reality is bad enough, why should I tell the truth?
		-- Patrick Sky