Re: Dr. Vulis is not on cypherpunks any more

> The short answer is, No. 

Their problem.

> More specifically, we constantly have
> a stream of new readers sampling Cypherpunks.  Some are 
> technically sophisticated; some are not.  In either case, new
> readers do not have the historical perspective not to fall for
> Dimitri's big lies. 

It is not a requirement in a libertarian forum to tell the truth.

You also seem to be implying that people need protecting from 
Dimitri, much the same authoritarian argument we hear from govt. 
about people needing to be protected from porn/drugs/free spech etc.

> Nor do they have any way of know what an
> abberation his sort of behavior is on this list.  "So this is
> what Cypherpunks are like," would be a sad, but understandable
> misinterpretation of what we're all about.  What John did was 
> appropriate.

I understand the point here but I suggest a note at the top of the 
"welcome to cypherpunks" note every new subscriber gets explaining 
who Dimitri is and how to set up their mailer software to block his 
posts.

 
 

  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"

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

C'punks,

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

> It is not a requirement in a libertarian forum to tell the truth.

Granted, but neither is it a requirement to suffer fools.
 
> You also seem to be implying that people need protecting from 
> Dimitri, much the same authoritarian argument we hear from govt. 
> about people needing to be protected from porn/drugs/free spech etc.

(a) I have it on good authority, that "authoritarian" does not
    mean what Paul apparently thinks it does.  Look it up, Paul,
    and then let us know if that's what you actually meant.  
    (Hint:  No one has suggested unquestioning obedience.  A
    better accusation--though still incorrect in the instant 
    case--would be of "paternalism.")

(b) I assure you, that was NOT my implication.  My position is 
    that (1) keeping that sort of noise down is a good thing,
    and (2) it's John's machine and John's call, not ours.


 S a n d y

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

At 4:42 PM -0500 11/4/96, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
>Granted, but neither is it a requirement to suffer fools.

	Actually I think that this view is at the core of the misunderstanding.

	In fact, we ARE required to suffer fools.  It is a clear and
acknowledged expense for an open society.

	This does not mean that we have to encourage them.  For example,
it's just fine to make a point of never responding to any mail from someone
you happen to consider a fool.  If enough list participants happen to
concur with your assessment, a de facto state of ostracism results.

	We need to acknowledge the responsibility we each carry for
encouraging continued activity by those we simultaneously assess as fools
(or worse.)

	Involuntary list membership termination is a fundamental error.

d/

--------------------
Dave Crocker                                             +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                              fax: +1 408 249 6205
675 Spruce Dr.                                  dcrocker@brandenburg.com
Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA                        http://www.brandenburg.com

Internet Mail Consortium                http://www.imc.org, info@imc.org

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

C'punks,

On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Dave Crocker wrote:

> 	Actually I think that this view is at the core of the
> misunderstanding.
> 
> 	In fact, we ARE required to suffer fools.

What you mean WE, white man?  Does this "requirement" include 
John Gilmore?  Must he and his machine be held in hostage to 
the gratuitous flames of Dimitri?  I think not.

> It is a clear and acknowledged expense for an open society.
 
Clear and acknowledged by whom?  Certainly not me.  We are not
talking about Dimitri's right to speak in open society.  This is
a private list provided through the generosity of one person.
Please refrain from making arguments that tacitly assume that
toad.com is a public good or has somehow been nationalized "in
the public interest."  

I challenge those who think John's actions were intemperate or
ill-advised to make their arguments without rewriting history or 
the facts, or by making use of poorly thought out metaphors.

This IS a private list, like it or not.  Crying "censorship" or
"authoritarianism" merely because John handled this differently
than you would have, is disingenuous to say the least.


 S a n d y

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

Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > Actually I think that this view is at the core of the misunderstanding.
> > In fact, we ARE required to suffer fools.

> What you mean WE, white man?  Does this "requirement" include
> John Gilmore?  Must he and his machine be held in hostage to
> the gratuitous flames of Dimitri?  I think not.

> > It is a clear and acknowledged expense for an open society.

> Clear and acknowledged by whom?  Certainly not me.  We are not
> talking about Dimitri's right to speak in open society.  This is
> a private list provided through the generosity of one person.

Sandy is suggesting (demanding?) that all cypherpunks subscribers "accept" without
question or proof John's generosity, i.e., the existence of the list being prima
facie evidence of same.

Well, Sandy, if this were a list sharing cookie recipes or some such thing, I'd grant
you the point, but it's not.  It's a list which would necessarily be watched closely
by neo-government factions such as NSA, and *quite* possibly be a trolling operation.

Please don't come back with the "so why are you here?" argument - after all, I have
my reasons, just like you.

Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com> writes:
> On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> > 	Actually I think that this view is at the core of the
> > misunderstanding.
> > 
> > 	In fact, we ARE required to suffer fools.
> 
> What you mean WE, white man?  Does this "requirement" include 
> John Gilmore?  Must he and his machine be held in hostage to 
> the gratuitous flames of Dimitri?  I think not.

You are required to suffer fools in order to maintain any sort of
credibility as the proponent of free speech.  John Gilmore has managed
to destroy his credibility.

Of course he's not required to maintain his credibility and is free to
destroy it in any way he wants to.

> This IS a private list, like it or not.  Crying "censorship" or
> "authoritarianism" merely because John handled this differently
> than you would have, is disingenuous to say the least.

Nobody's trying to interfere with John Gilmore's right to practice censorship
on his private mailing list.

But to deny that he's engaging in censorship is disingenuous.

---

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

paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk writes:
>
> You also seem to be implying that people need protecting from
> Dimitri, much the same authoritarian argument we hear from govt.
> about people needing to be protected from porn/drugs/free spech etc.

A very good observation. The 'net needs John Gilmore and Chris Lewis
to protect the newbies from the unsuitable writings of Dr. Dimitri Vulis,
from commercial ads, and from strong crypto in civilian hands. :-)

What do you think about the following conjecture: "cypherpunks" was a
troll, set up to waste the time of the crypto-clueful people who might
otherwise develop good free crypto software.

> > Nor do they have any way of know what an
> > abberation his sort of behavior is on this list.  "So this is
> > what Cypherpunks are like," would be a sad, but understandable
> > misinterpretation of what we're all about.  What John did was
> > appropriate.

It's appropriate for the list owner to do almost anything he likes with his
mailing list: shut it down, unsubscribe people from it, filter out certain
people s/he doesn't like, to cause unsubscription instructions to be appended
to every broadcast article (some lists do that), to cause special disclaimers
to be appended to certain perople's submissions, etc. However subscribing
people to a mailing list without their asking for it has been viewed as
net-abuse for many years, a variant of sending out unsolicited e-mail.

A list owner _often has to unsubscribe addresses that have ceased to exist,
whose former owners hadn't bothered to unsubscribe, and whose e-mail bounces
back to the owner. I think John's actions should be viewed not in the
framework of his propoerty rights (no one argues with those, I hope), but
in terms of his credibility - of which he has none left.

> I understand the point here but I suggest a note at the top of the
> "welcome to cypherpunks" note every new subscriber gets explaining
> who Dimitri is and how to set up their mailer software to block his
> posts.

An excellet suggestion! John certainly has the right to do this on the
mailing list he owns. I also believe that a woman owns her body and
that prostitution should be decriminalized. A whore should have the right
to stand on a streetcorner with a big sign saying "Let me suck your cock
for $10". I have the right to respect her more than John.

---

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