Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list

> It is obvious to me that those who are waving the bloody flag of
> "censorship" are doing so for either of two reasons.  The ones to
> whom I am the most sympathetic are those who simply do not have
> a clear and coherent understanding of rights in an anarchistic,
> volunteeristic society.  

You need have no sympathy. Those members of this list see it as it 
is, a list that was supposed to be, in some small way, a "model" of 
an anarchistic discussion forum for the subject of cryptography, 
either technically (later split into coderpunks) or at a 
sociopolitical level. That was the intended direction of the list, it 
has rapidly disentigrated over recent months into a censored list 
where the elite post to the main list and anyone else is nearly 
always relegated to a seperate list for the crypto-untermenshcen.

> The ones for whom I have no sympathy are those whose obvious 
> goal is disruption of the Cypherpunks list and who are hiding
> behind a phoney interpretation of "free speech."

You may make as many excuses as you like, the bottom line is you have 
become what you profess to hate most, a censor. If having the right 
to post freely on a list that was supposed to operate as a free and 
open anarchic forum is not a valid interpretation of free speech I 
cannot envisage any more elegant example.
 
> I think both of these groups are intellectually dishonest in the
> extreme when it comes to telling others how this list should be
> run.  I doubt any of them would permit the sort of disruptive
> behavior that goes on here to go unchallenged in salons they
> sponsor in their own homes or on Net lists that they themselves 
> maintain.

If you want to talk about intellectual dishonesty try the following:

Imagine if you will a list, the original purpose of which was
to act as a free and open forum for discussion of cryptography and 
related issues. A list which proudly proclaims in its "welcome to 
the list" message:

We do not seek to prevent other people from
speaking about their experiences or their opinions.

Now imagine that list falling into a state of content based 
censorship and censorship based on an unspoken but ever present 
class structure, then ask yourself which list you know that most 
closely matches this description, it`s a pretty revealing exercise.

> This is a voluntary list folks.  We tried incivility and that did
> not work.  Right now we are experimenting with reasoned discourse
> in an atmosphere of interpersonal respect and good will. 

For "Reasoned discourse in an atmosphere of interpersonal respect and 
good will" read "content based censorship".

> If most list members like the change, it will continue.  If not, then we
> can go back to the swill or perhaps try something else.  In the
> meantime, get over it.  If you really like flames and spam, show
> John and me how it really should be done.  Start another list.  
> Of course squating and claim jumping appeal to the lazy a lot
> more than homesteading.

It is a foregone conclusion that the upper class of list members will 
have no dispute over the censorship and therefore the change will be 
permenant, it is a form of online ethnic cleansing whereby the lists 
clique of illuminati have taken it upon themselves to remove the 
elements of the list they feel endanger their position of superiority 
and respect, the point they have missed is that they have no 
credibility whatsoever after this incident, as well as a number of 
other such occurances and therefore are only isolating themselves 
into their own little world.

"cypherpunks will make the networks safe for censorship"
 

  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, 26 Jan 1997 paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote:

> You need have no sympathy. Those members of this list see it as it 
> is, a list that was supposed to be, in some small way, a "model" of 
> an anarchistic discussion forum for the subject of cryptography,...

Nonsense.  It was supposed to be a discussion of crypto and 
other technologies in support of privacy.  The founders, Hughes,
Gilmore, May and Daniel were focusing on that goal.  The list
structure was anarchistic (and still is to those who understand
the concept of anarco-capitalism).  Obviously Gilmore is not
wedded to the idea of letting every fool use his bandwidth.  In
personal discussions as recently as yesterday, Hughes had no
problem in supporting some mechanism to promote civility on the
list.  I don't think anything May has written would suggest he
would have a problem with keeping things polite.  His only 
argument seems to be over methodology.  He thinks filtering is
the answer; I don't.  Reasonable minds may differ.  Hugh Daniel
has been instrumental in providing technical help with regard to
moderation.  Finally, the fact that the vast majority of list
members have not seen fit to "vote with their feet" should 
suggest how most really feel about moderation.  (By the way, if
you don't like moderation, you would hate Eric Hughes' favored 
solution.)

> ...That was the intended direction of the list, it 
> has rapidly disentigrated over recent months into a censored list 
> where the elite post to the main list and anyone else is nearly 
> always relegated to a seperate list for the crypto-untermenshcen.

Again, nonsense.  The moderation experiment (moderation, not
censorship) has been in effect for all of ONE WEEK.  Where does 
Paul get this hysterical "recent months" stuff?  

> If you want to talk about intellectual dishonesty try the following:
> 
> Imagine if you will a list, the original purpose of which was
> to act as a free and open forum for discussion of cryptography and 
> related issues...

Paul's argument is the essence of literal conservativism,  "but 
I don't things to change!"  Without change, though, there can be 
no progress.  Moderation is a one-month experiment.  There is no
intellectual dishonesty in saying, "let's try something else for
a while."

> Now imagine that list falling into a state of content based 
> censorship and censorship based on an unspoken but ever present 
> class structure,...

"Unspoken but ever present class structure"?  I wonder how Paul
was able to divine this?  Certainly it is unspoken, but that, of 
course, it because it does not exist anywhere but in Paul's
fertile imagination.

> It is a foregone conclusion that the upper class of list members will 
> have no dispute over the censorship and therefore the change will be 
> permenant,...

Great!  I thought that hadn't been determined yet.  What a 
relief.


 S a n d y

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