Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <199701260712.XAA10405@toad.com>, on 01/25/97 
   at 11:03 PM, Toto <toto@sk.sympatico.ca> said:

+  I fail to see how any supposedly intelligent members of the 
+CypherPunks list can possibly be content to fall for the line,
+  "Bend over, baby. I'm only going to moderate you 'a little bit'."

    attila sez:

        no matter if one perceives the "need" for a moderator or not, I  
    find it hard to accept --even to eliminate the grossly obscene 
    attacks by a few members against other members. I wonder if we need 
    a 'childish' excluder? 

        I question how Sandy can accept the job as moderator, passing 
    judgement on 100-300 messages per day.  just trimming spam is 
    questionable: what is spam?  flames: what draws the line at flames: 

            personal attacks? 
            profanity? 
            politically [in]correct speach?  
            historical revisionism? 

        and, I think cypherpunks is setting an atrocious example of our 
    own narrow mindedness (creditable or not) when we sanction any 
    filtering of what we see --is this not **exactly** what we accuse 
    the controlled media of determining what is "fit to print?"

        unfortunately, we are demonstrating to our critics that 

        a)  net anarchy does not work
        b)  cyberlibertarianism breeds anarchy
        c)  we're loose cannons on the deck
        d)  we are not civilized enough to warrant respect

    and this can go on and on and on...  But, the minute we, as a group, 
    start to tell other members of the group to 'clean up your act' we 
    are violating the principal "ethic" which we claim: freedom.

        sure, we can claim we are entitled to total libertarianism, or 
    anarchy; but there is a responsibility to create a workable, 
    cooperative social order, if for no other reason than protecting us 
    in the wilderness, or feeding us, or clothing us.  anyone here wish 
    to return to survivalist modes of a head of household 200 years ago?

        we can have pure communism, the LDS Brotherhood, the Shaker 
    house, or even true anarchy where you may do anything you wish as 
    long as it does not infringe on the rights or property of another.
 
        --catch22: just how do set the laws on limits, and how do you 
    enforce the limits if you have voted to dissolve all 'government' 
    and 'police?'  

            when basic human ambition to better oneself 
            is literally killed...

        good luck, Sandy;  make sure you pull a sanity check everyday 
    when you start and finish the onerous task!

  ==
  "you may not be next,
    you may not be last,
      but you are too late to have been first.  
            --attila


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: latin1
Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later.

iQCVAwUBMusMbr04kQrCC2kFAQFXYgP/aK2vEs0skEaYNbwWiDXS+GcYKIRJ52/c
y87akjVm/d1U+LDheHN0cvFxHiMCNRCIJKKa7hHNr3AYDXzJtehthP/pi+L5NPTD
kYY58tUFy0p/t0hN4vze4i0wnxkymAVCnIVNkfGyAGwXytCxCmPUCHcV5ZzlYcI+
jrXv2nuBsos=
=ZTbB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Attila T. Hun wrote:
>         I question how Sandy can accept the job as moderator, passing
>     judgement on 100-300 messages per day.  just trimming spam is
>     questionable: what is spam?  flames: what draws the line at flames:

 It is whatever the moderator decides it is, depending upon h/is/er 
intelligence, understanding, mood, command of language, sobriety,
etc., etc., etc.

>         and, I think cypherpunks is setting an atrocious example of our
>     own narrow mindedness (creditable or not) when we sanction any
>     filtering of what we see --is this not **exactly** what we accuse
>     the controlled media of determining what is "fit to print?"

 I am certain that there are members of the controlled media who are
ROTL at the CypherPunks following in their footsteps, after having
belittled the media for years for their sheep-mentality.
 
>         unfortunately, we are demonstrating to our critics that 
>         a)  net anarchy does not work
>         b)  cyberlibertarianism breeds anarchy
>         c)  we're loose cannons on the deck
>         d)  we are not civilized enough to warrant respect

 We are also demonstrating that all of the CypherPunk rhetoric about
cryptography and freedom and... was just a lot of 'smoke' being 
blown by a bunch of pretenders who folded like a busted flush when
they were 'told' that the man who owns the Machine will now subject
them to the whims of whatever moderation he sees fit to impose on
the list.
  Cryptography is about privacy. Apparently, however, the New List
Order is of the opinion the Privacy Without Freedom is an obtainable
goal.

>         --catch22: just how do set the laws on limits, and how do you
>     enforce the limits if you have voted to dissolve all 'government'
>     and 'police?'

  It doesn't matter if the 'owner' of the list/Machine decides that s/he
is now the government, with the power and/or right to make all decisions
concerning the list.

>         good luck, Sandy;  make sure you pull a sanity check everyday
>     when you start and finish the onerous task!

  I think that anyone who thinks that moderation is, or could ever be,
anything other than a dance into the arms of the establishment, is
already crazy.
  For the record, I don't think that either John or Sandy is crazy.
I think that they have their own pre-established goals which others
on the cypherpunks list are not privy to.
  Of course, this is my personal opinion, and I could be wrong.
  On the other hand, I could be 'right' like I am about everything
else.

Toto

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

C'punks,

On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Toto wrote:

>   I think that anyone who thinks that moderation is, or could ever be,
> anything other than a dance into the arms of the establishment, is
> already crazy.

Apparently, Toto does not know very much about John or me or our 
relationships with the "Establishment."  It is who are using a
intellectually dishonest smokescreen of "freedom of speech" in 
order to disrupt and hamper the work of Cypherpunks who are 
dancing into the arms of the "Establishment."
 
>   For the record, I don't think that either John or Sandy is crazy.
> I think that they have their own pre-established goals which others
> on the cypherpunks list are not privy to.

I can't speak for John, but my goals have been stated too often
and too completely for anyone not to know them.  I want us all to
have privacy.  The Cypherpunks list was created to facilitate
discussion--and ultimately action by those who were inclined and 
able to do something to further that goal via the use of
cryptographic and other technologies.  I believe that childish
name-calling and personal attacks interferes with rational 
discourse and a spirit of common purpose and community.  

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.  

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."

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.

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.  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.


 S a n d y

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

Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> Apparently, Toto does not know very much about John or me or our
> relationships with the "Establishment."

  Unfortunately, I know a little 'too much' about you and John and
your relationships with the Establishment.  But as long as I don't
think about it at the dinner table, it doesn't affect my appetite.

> I can't speak for John, but 

  You do so all of the time. It seems, rather, that John cannot 
speak for himself (or is too embarrassed to do so).

> I think both of these groups are intellectually dishonest in the
> extreme when it comes to telling others how this list should be
> run. 

  No, Sandy, it is yourself and John who are 'telling' others how
this list 'will' be run.
  You seem to be projecting your own motivations upon anyone who 
'expresses' any unflattering opinion of the the censorship process
you have instituted.
 
> Of course squating and claim jumping appeal to the lazy a lot
> more than homesteading.

 It must be nice, Sandy, having the power and control over the list
that enables you to fling insults at others and then direct them
to others only at your own whim and discretion.
 I guess that it is every list-dictator's dream to have the power
to send a big FUCK YOU to one portion of the list, and send a
portrait of themself as Mother Teresa to another portion of the
list.

Toto

Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Toto wrote:

> >   I think that anyone who thinks that moderation is, or could ever be,
> > anything other than a dance into the arms of the establishment, is
> > already crazy.

> Apparently, Toto does not know very much about John or me or our
> relationships with the "Establishment."  It is who are using a
> intellectually dishonest smokescreen of "freedom of speech" in
> order to disrupt and hamper the work of Cypherpunks who are
> dancing into the arms of the "Establishment."
[some snip]
> 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.  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.

Actually, it is a certifiable fact that the list subscribers can
jump to the unmoderated list whenever they want to.  It is also a
certifiable fact that they (97% or so) have *not* done so.

Because of these facts, I must conclude that either:

1. The subscribers have spoken by staying put, or,
2. The subscribers are so lazy and unaware of what's going on that
   they've just left things as is.

Now, in my opinion, we've come to this:  Some people here will hold
the optimistic view of the bulk of the subscribers, and others will
hold the pessimistic view (the bulk will presumably be in-between).