A comment on the censorship policy

I cannot understand how some of my (accurate) criticisms of Sandfort's
censorhip polices---some in direct response to his own self-serving posts
declaring himself not to be a flamer himself---are not making it to the
"New and Improved Censored List," while inane posts from Toto, Thorn, and
someone named "Nurdane Oksas" are appearing.

(Oksas has the especially annoying habit of quoting entire posts and then
appending a one-line piece of completely list-irrelevant fluff. Also,
engaging in lovey-dovey posts with Vulis, who writes messages about how he
longs to see Oksas naked.)

This whole process is showing the worst of Sandfort's censorship policy.

(If this is dumped into the "Not suitable for Cypherpunks to read" list, I
urge those of you who see it to pass it on to the main list.)

END

--

On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Anonymous wrote:
> I cannot understand how some of my (accurate) criticisms of Sandfort's
> censorhip polices---some in direct response to his own self-serving posts
> declaring himself not to be a flamer himself---are not making it to the
> "New and Improved Censored List," while inane posts from Toto, Thorn, and
> someone named "Nurdane Oksas" are appearing.

	WEll....that's not so bad ;)
	
> (Oksas has the especially annoying habit of quoting entire posts and then
> appending a one-line piece of completely list-irrelevant fluff. Also,
	Is it so annoying...? why did you read it to that point??? :)
	Why could you not be so anonymous and tell me?  My posts are
	a bit brief; Blancs' are far better, next time read hers.

> engaging in lovey-dovey posts with Vulis, who writes messages about how he
> longs to see Oksas naked.)

	Huh??  You are being a 'fluff' here ;)
	
> This whole process is showing the worst of Sandfort's censorship policy.
> 
> (If this is dumped into the "Not suitable for Cypherpunks to read" list, I
> urge those of you who see it to pass it on to the main list.)

> 
> END
> 
> --
>

OKSAS <oksas@asimov.montclair.edu> writes:

> On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Anonymous wrote:
> > I cannot understand how some of my (accurate) criticisms of Sandfort's
> > censorhip polices---some in direct response to his own self-serving posts
> > declaring himself not to be a flamer himself---are not making it to the
> > "New and Improved Censored List," while inane posts from Toto, Thorn, and
> > someone named "Nurdane Oksas" are appearing.
> 
> 	WEll....that's not so bad ;)

I find Oksas's posts to be very interesting.  

> > (Oksas has the especially annoying habit of quoting entire posts and then
> > appending a one-line piece of completely list-irrelevant fluff. Also,
> 	Is it so annoying...? why did you read it to that point??? :)
> 	Why could you not be so anonymous and tell me?  My posts are
> 	a bit brief; Blancs' are far better, next time read hers.
> 
> > engaging in lovey-dovey posts with Vulis, who writes messages about how he
> > longs to see Oksas naked.)
> 
> 	Huh??  You are being a 'fluff' here ;)

"Anonymous" is lying - I never posted any such thing.  of course the
cocksuckr moderator passed on the "anon's" lies to the censored mailing
list, and I bet he's goingto auto-bounce my refutation to "flames"
- just as everyone had predicted.

> 	
> > This whole process is showing the worst of Sandfort's censorship policy.
> > 
> > (If this is dumped into the "Not suitable for Cypherpunks to read" list, I
> > urge those of you who see it to pass it on to the main list.)

If you don't like the sandfart's moderation policy, you can just read the
unedited list and institute your own moderation policy using 'procmail'.
That's pretty much what the sandfart does anyway. Fluff from people he likes
makes it to the censored list (like a request to jya's bot cc'd to the whole
censored list) whie anything I or Toto or Oksas say is auto-junked.

---

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

On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> OKSAS <oksas@asimov.montclair.edu> writes:
> > On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Anonymous wrote:
> > > I cannot understand how some of my (accurate) criticisms of Sandfort's
> > > censorhip polices---some in direct response to his own self-serving posts
> > > declaring himself not to be a flamer himself---are not making it to the
> > > "New and Improved Censored List," while inane posts from Toto, Thorn, and
> > > someone named "Nurdane Oksas" are appearing.
> > 
> > 	WEll....that's not so bad ;)
> 
> I find Oksas's posts to be very interesting.  

	Thank you.

> > > (Oksas has the especially annoying habit of quoting entire posts and then
> > > appending a one-line piece of completely list-irrelevant fluff. Also,
> > 	Is it so annoying...? why did you read it to that point??? :)
> > 	Why could you not be so anonymous and tell me?  My posts are
> > 	a bit brief; Blancs' are far better, next time read hers.
> > 
> > > engaging in lovey-dovey posts with Vulis, who writes messages about how he
> > > longs to see Oksas naked.)
> > 
> > 	Huh??  You are being a 'fluff' here ;)
> 
> "Anonymous" is lying - I never posted any such thing.  of course the
> cocksuckr moderator passed on the "anon's" lies to the censored mailing
> list, and I bet he's goingto auto-bounce my refutation to "flames"
> - just as everyone had predicted.

	Anonymous is a jerk.
> > 	
	Best Regards,

	OKSAS

Anonymous wrote:
> 
> I cannot understand how some of my (accurate) criticisms of Sandfort's
> censorhip polices---some in direct response to his own self-serving posts
> declaring himself not to be a flamer himself---are not making it to the
> "New and Improved Censored List," while inane posts from Toto, Thorn, and
> someone named "Nurdane Oksas" are appearing.

Dear Mr. or Ms. Anonymous,
  It is extremely easy to understand. Just read your own words.
  The key word here is 'accurate' criticisms. This makes them 'flames',
in Sandy's mind, because the purpose of the 'censorship experiment'
was to place total control of the list in the hands of a man who
rarely posts and doesn't seem to participate in the list discussions,
as well as for the purpose of suppressing any real dissent that may
arise from list members.

  Also, one of the reasons that the moderation process is so 
haphazard, is that posts from some individuals are automatically
routed to the 'flames' list at some times, and viewed/censored
at other times, so that a few can be posted to the censored 
list to give some half-hearted illusion of fairness in the
censorship process. (which remains a bad joke, nonetheless).

 Thank you for using the word 'inane' to describe some of my 
posts. Most people aren't polite enough to drop the 's' when
using the word. (Not that it matters. Some individuals are 
automatically 'flame-approved' for the censored list.)

  Also, I wouldn't be too sure that the email you receive from
toad.com accurately reflects what is being posted to each list.
There are some funny things going on between 'incoming' and
'outgoing', and some of them are designed to make the process
obtuse, and hard to follow.

> has the especially annoying habit of quoting entire posts and then
> appending a one-line piece of completely list-irrelevant fluff. Also,
> engaging in lovey-dovey posts with Vulis, who writes messages about how he
> longs to see Oksas naked.)

  Try deleting the irrelevant parts before printing out the parts about
seeing Nurdane naked. That will save you time, and get you to the
bathroom quicker.
 
> This whole process is showing the worst of Sandfort's censorship policy.

  I think that you are being overly kind, once again, in suggesting 
that there really is a 'policy'. It's more like a crapshoot (pardon
the pun), where the spots on the dice change at his personal whim.
 
Toto