A vote of confidence for Sandy

I have the utmost confidence  in Sandy and his efforts to revive the
quality of our list.

Dale Thorn wrote:
> 
> Marc J. Wohler wrote:
> > I have the utmost confidence  in Sandy and his efforts to revive the
> > quality of our list.
> 
> And I have all the confidence in the world in William Bennett,
> George Bush, and all their wonderful helpers in helping with the
> Boys and Girls Clubs of Southern California.
> 
> Why not re-elect Hitler?

  "Why can't we just all get along?"
  (O.J., are you listening, this time?)

Please as soon as possible... make this into a moderated list...

then I can kiss this noise goodbye...

    cheers
    a cypherpunk

cypherpunks@count04.mry.scruznet.com writes:

>
>
> Please as soon as possible... make this into a moderated list...
>
> then I can kiss this noise goodbye...
>
>     cheers
>     a cypherpunk

I'm glad I'm not a "cypher punk" and oppose censorship.

Comrade Goen is not a real person. He's another Timmy May tentacle.

---

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

cypherpunks@count04.mry.scruznet.com wrote:
> Please as soon as possible... make this into a moderated list...
> then I can kiss this noise goodbye...

Could you please (!) state for the record:

1. Why you can't use filters?

2. Why you want your news censored?  Do you think when (if) you pick
   up your favourite big-city newspaper, that having a "Times Staff
   Writer" edit (rewrite) all the stories is better than getting them
   straight off the wire, i.e., AP, UPI, etc.?  I'll bet you do, you
   budding little fascist.

soon you too will disappear :)
  as to the budding facist comment
  I got death threats and called
traitor when I published PGP 1.0 and I endured
5 long years of federal harassment to listen to YOU???
   no I dont think so...
PLEASE consider this an official request 
to MODERATE the cypherpunks list
   kelly goen - Publisher PGP 1.0 June 5 1991
   
   now it seems not only a traitor but a budding facist...
BTW this account is being deleted tonite and I will gladly resubscribe
to a moderated list under a different name and host.domain than cypherpunk

cypherpunks@count04.mry.scruznet.com wrote:
> soon you too will disappear :)
>   as to the budding facist comment
>   I got death threats and called
> traitor when I published PGP 1.0 and I endured
> 5 long years of federal harassment to listen to YOU???
>    no I dont think so...
> PLEASE consider this an official request
> to MODERATE the cypherpunks list
>    kelly goen - Publisher PGP 1.0 June 5 1991
>    now it seems not only a traitor but a budding facist...
> BTW this account is being deleted tonite and I will gladly resubscribe
> to a moderated list under a different name and host.domain than cypherpunk

So you endured the Nazi persecution, and then you became one of them.
Congratulations.

Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> writes:

> cypherpunks@count04.mry.scruznet.com wrote:
> > soon you too will disappear :)
> >   as to the budding facist comment
> >   I got death threats and called
> > traitor when I published PGP 1.0 and I endured
> > 5 long years of federal harassment to listen to YOU???
> >    no I dont think so...
> > PLEASE consider this an official request
> > to MODERATE the cypherpunks list
> >    kelly goen - Publisher PGP 1.0 June 5 1991
> >    now it seems not only a traitor but a budding facist...
> > BTW this account is being deleted tonite and I will gladly resubscribe
> > to a moderated list under a different name and host.domain than cypherpunk
> 
> So you endured the Nazi persecution, and then you became one of them.
> Congratulations.
> 


Isn't this known as "Stockhold syndrom" after some hostages who
became their captors' defenders?  It's a kind of defense reaction.

---

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

cypherpunks@count04.mry.scruznet.com writes:

> soon you too will disappear :)

Yes - is this mailing list being censored by Sandy yet?

>   as to the budding facist comment
>   I got death threats and called
> traitor when I published PGP 1.0 and I endured
> 5 long years of federal harassment to listen to YOU???

You've done many good things Kelly.

>    no I dont think so...

But now you advocate censorship. If you don't want to listen to
Dale, it's your private choice (and your loss).  But you want to impose
your choice on others.  You don't want me to be able to listen to Dale or
Dale to be able to listen to me, even when it's out of your hearing.
You want Ray Arachelanian to be able to post lies about people and his
victims to be unable to refute his libel in the same forum.

I'm surprised and disappointed and I urge you to reconsider your position.

> PLEASE consider this an official request 
> to MODERATE the cypherpunks list
>    kelly goen - Publisher PGP 1.0 June 5 1991
>    
>    now it seems not only a traitor but a budding facist...

And that's really a pity.

> BTW this account is being deleted tonite and I will gladly resubscribe
> to a moderated list under a different name and host.domain than cypherpunk 

You mean your kelly@netcom.com lifetime account?


---

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

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:

> But now you advocate censorship. If you don't want to listen to
> Dale, it's your private choice (and your loss).  But you want to impose
> your choice on others.  You don't want me to be able to listen to Dale or
> Dale to be able to listen to me, even when it's out of your hearing.
> You want Ray Arachelanian to be able to post lies about people and his
> victims to be unable to refute his libel in the same forum.

  If I had a dime for everyone who wants to make my life 'better' by
'protecting' me from 'bad people' (others, not 'them'), then I'd be
able to contribute to CypherPunks under the 'dollar a post' system
evisioned by the guy (I have escaped his name) willing to put a few
gallons of gas less in his Cadillac every week so that his viewpoint
won't have any competition from the masses.

Toto

cypherpunks@count04.mry.scruznet.com wrote:

> BTW this account is being deleted tonite and I will gladly resubscribe
> to a moderated list under a different name and host.domain than cypherpunk

Dale,
  This is the second post you've received today that says, 
  "Touched you last...bye!"

  You certainly seem to bring out the 'child' in people.

Toto

On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:

> cypherpunks@count04.mry.scruznet.com wrote:
> > Please as soon as possible... make this into a moderated list...
> > then I can kiss this noise goodbye...
> 
> Could you please (!) state for the record:
> 
> 1. Why you can't use filters?

Filters aren't intelligent enough.  How do you propose to filter out the 
anonymous dialy warnings about Tim May?

while they originally came with a fixed subject which one could filter, 
they are now popping up anonymously with random crypto related subjects.  
If you filter all anonymous mail, you lose the good anon mail you might 
want to read.  Yeah, you can look for "Timmy, Mayo, Maya" and other 
clues, but these will prevent you from reading other posts which contain 
those words.  Least you expect us to use A.I. filtering which require 
trainng and don't really exist.  Feel free to write one if you are so 
inclined.

Even our friend Vulis has sane posts when he takes his medication (though 
I suspect he does so rarely.)  Filtering out everything he posts doesn't 
make sense, as reading the sane stuff will have some value.  I don't want 
to miss what he says when it is worth my time to read it.

 
> 2. Why you want your news censored?  Do you think when (if) you pick
>    up your favourite big-city newspaper, that having a "Times Staff
>    Writer" edit (rewrite) all the stories is better than getting them
>    straight off the wire, i.e., AP, UPI, etc.?  I'll bet you do, you
>    budding little fascist.


For the same reason that you don't watch all 150+ cable channels on your 
TV (assuming you have a TV and cable) at the same time.  It is a waste of 
your time to attempt it, you have no interest in 99% of it.  You want to 
read what is relevant to your interests, if you have subscribed to 
cypherpunks, it is because some of the material posted here is of 
interest to you.  This material has to do with crypto, crypto-anarchy, 
some politics as it relates to crypto, and crypto related news.  IF you 
want to find out about the mating calls of seaguls, you subscribe to 
whatever mailing lists share that interest; not everyone who subscribes 
to cypherpunks wants to read about seaguls.  Or mad rants about the 
sexual prefs of folks on this list, especially when posted with malice.

Or for that matter tons of posts advertising various crap sent to 
"Fuck_You_Punks" and other such users.  These were clearly requested to 
us by folks who claim their names to be "Fuck_You_Punks"; advertising 
doesn't belong here either.  If you want to advertise on the list, fine, 
pay the list owner for air time.

As for me, I do not read newspapers or watch the news on TV since to me 
they are depressing, boring and useless.

The proposed scheme should not affect anyone in any way.  Those who want 
the filtered list will get it, those who want the spams and flames and 
ads and turds will get them, those who want it all will also get them.

Why are you so opposed to giving people a choice to pick between the 
moderated and unmoderated lists personally?  Just as there is freedom of 
speech, there is the freedom to ignore, to chose to filter or tune out 
flames and turds.  The proposed scheme of having three mailing lists 
empowers the readers of this list to chose for themselves.

Are you so afraid that no one cares about what you have to say, that they 
won't have to listen to you?  Or are you just paranoid and see flashes of 
censorship before your eyes?

Think about it this way: if a device existed that allowed TV viewers to 
not see commercials, would they purchase it?  Why shouldn't you allow 
them to chose to ignore commercials?  Maybe because you're an advertiser 
and are paying for the commercials?  Maybe, but I think most TV watchers 
would love to have such a device; some won't want it, or would want to 
watch the commercials.  But they would have a choice.

How is this any different?


=====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos==============
.+.^.+.|  Ray Arachelian    | "If  you're  gonna die,  die  with your|./|\.
..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com|boots on;  If you're  gonna  try,  just |/\|/\
<--*-->| ------------------ |stick around; Gonna cry? Just move along|\/|\/
../|\..| "A toast to Odin,  |you're gonna die, you're gonna die!"    |.\|/.
.+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"|  --Iron Maiden "Die With Your Boots on"|.....
======================== http://www.sundernet.com =========================

Ray Arachelian wrote:
> Filters aren't intelligent enough.  How do you propose to filter out the
> anonymous dialy warnings about Tim May?

 I keep hearing about how moderation is essential to get rid of the
noise
so that 'code writers' can have serious discussions.
 Am I to understand that I am expected to have some kind of esoteric
faith in 'code writers' cryptographic output, when they can't even
write a filter that meets their own requirements?

> Even our friend Vulis has sane posts when he takes his medication (though
> I suspect he does so rarely.)  Filtering out everything he posts doesn't
> make sense, as reading the sane stuff will have some value.  I don't want
> to miss what he says when it is worth my time to read it.

  Exactly. And I don't know how 'any' moderator is going to satisfy your
personal desires, and mine, and those of several thousand others.
  I don't know 'Sandy' from spit, and it doesn't really matter to me
whether he is God or the SpamMan.  He may be the most well-intentioned
person in the universe, but if he can psychically divine what
'everybody'
wants, I'll kiss your butt.

> The proposed scheme should not affect anyone in any way.  Those who want
> the filtered list will get it, those who want the spams and flames and
> ads and turds will get them, those who want it all will also get them.

  Split lists won't lead to 'harmony', it will lead to 'fractation'.
Putting up a sign that says, "Flamers must sit in the back of the bus."
seems like a good idea.  The fact is, however, that it leads to a
society with a structured class system, and history has already told
us where it goes from there.
  Blacks have always had the option of 'going back to Africa, where they
came from'. (It's a 'free' country, isn't it?)

Toto

Marc J. Wohler wrote:
> I have the utmost confidence  in Sandy and his efforts to revive the
> quality of our list.

And I have all the confidence in the world in William Bennett,
George Bush, and all their wonderful helpers in helping with the
Boys and Girls Clubs of Southern California.

Why not re-elect Hitler?

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

In <32D066C2.3FAA@gte.net>, on 01/05/97 
   at 06:43 PM, Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> said:

::Marc J. Wohler wrote:
::> I have the utmost confidence  in Sandy and his efforts to revive the 
::> quality of our list.

::And I have all the confidence in the world in William Bennett,
::George Bush, and all their wonderful helpers in helping with the Boys and
::Girls Clubs of Southern California.

        what's so far fetched about this; after all, if _any_ of the 
    calculations are correct as to various deals of the master spy maker, the 
    very best since WWII, the great public servant, blah, blah --are you sick 
    yet? --as to the amount of illicit cash controlled by same, why not; at 
    least he can a) pay for the Uzis; b) pay for their funerals; and c) do us 
    all a favour.

::Why not re-elect Hitler?

        in Southern California?   ROTFFL


  ==
  "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, 
    the first things to be bought and sold are legislators"  
        --P.J. O'Rourke.

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

iQCVAwUBMtB0p704kQrCC2kFAQFN2QQAj7jT7wOwMOQgqwnEGMlZfvm3W0RUhvj9
I5kvzPqHuKyt99y00hs3E6ONAEGyTt34ONLZqNewo44NgYostkMESN4ljpbwD+Py
crcuPK9yHKF4wgWMjBWHfdi3Fg0u4/aJH2nve5wbpFXQJ5Ot59AXVMAXb46T+A79
wNFtLxOmyko=
=2T5V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:

> Marc J. Wohler wrote:
> > I have the utmost confidence  in Sandy and his efforts to revive the
> > quality of our list.
> 
> And I have all the confidence in the world in William Bennett,
> George Bush, and all their wonderful helpers in helping with the
> Boys and Girls Clubs of Southern California.
> 
> Why not re-elect Hitler?
> 

One knows one has come up with a potent weapon against one's enemies when
they begin to panic visibly like this.

The smell of fear is in the air.

The question is, will the ultimate internet trump card of a distractor
(Reference Godwin's law) divert the issue and save poor Mr. Thorn from a
policy which is certainly going to be a devastating impact on his public
exposure from here on out?

It does amuse me that George Bush and William Bennett are thrown out
for fear mongering purposes before Godwin's law is invoked.  One would
think Mr. Thorn had mistaken the list for a liberal stronghold.  Then
again, no one ever accused Mr. Dale "Snake Oil" Thorn of being afflicted
with a strong writer's sense of audience).

--
Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures
Finger for Public Key   Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern
Vote Monarchist         Switzerland

Black Unicorn wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > Marc J. Wohler wrote:
> > > I have the utmost confidence  in Sandy and his efforts to revive the
> > > quality of our list.

> > And I have all the confidence in the world in William Bennett,
> > George Bush, and all their wonderful helpers in helping with the
> > Boys and Girls Clubs of Southern California.
> > Why not re-elect Hitler?

> One knows one has come up with a potent weapon against one's enemies when
> they begin to panic visibly like this. The smell of fear is in the air.

Fear?  What fear?  I had a long and productive life before I subscribed
here, and what with 1,000 or so programming projects awaiting me (and
most other competent programmers), I certainly won't be wasting time
bemoaning the fact that Sandy Sandfort "won" here, any more than I
bemoan the fact that most wars anywhere are won by the bad guys.

> The question is, will the ultimate internet trump card of a distractor
> (Reference Godwin's law) divert the issue and save poor Mr. Thorn from a
> policy which is certainly going to be a devastating impact on his public
> exposure from here on out?

I'll tell you something else. If I have an opportunity to contribute to
a project that can fight censorship of this kind, I will do so eagerly.
OTOH, I have no "tentacles", nor will I ever have such things.  I am not
a communications, security, O/S, or other such kind of programmer/person,
and I will not get into those types of applications short of physically
saving my life.  In other words, if Sandfort/Gilmore cuts me off in the
long run, it's doubtful you'd hear from me again unless something is
forwarded from Freedom-Knights, and even that is doubtful.

> It does amuse me that George Bush and William Bennett are thrown out
> for fear mongering purposes before Godwin's law is invoked.

One would think you would understand the principle of using examples
to illustrate a point. The very idea that those names would automatic-
ally inspire fear is amusing.

> One would think Mr. Thorn had mistaken the list for a liberal stronghold.

Having read a lot of the crap put out by organizations from the KKK to
the ADL (all scumbags BTW), I no longer take the naive position that a
person is "liberal" (hence, one-dimensional) or "conservative", or any
other convenient tag.  Some people are liars, hypocrites, and assholes,
though, and I prefer to determine that by their actions rather than
their speculations.

> Then again, no one ever accused Mr. Dale "Snake Oil" Thorn of being
> afflicted with a strong writer's sense of audience).

You mean I don't tailor my prose to what people want to hear?
Better yet, I don't go somewhere else where maybe I would be more
welcome with my ideas?  I'm embarrassed for you, for your lack of
imagination.  And if the "snake oil" tag refers to my ideas on
crypto software (i.e., PGP), well, you have a long way to go
before you provide a serious mental challenge to me.

On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:

> Black Unicorn wrote:
> > On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > > Marc J. Wohler wrote:
> > > > I have the utmost confidence  in Sandy and his efforts to revive the
> > > > quality of our list.
> 
> > > And I have all the confidence in the world in William Bennett,
> > > George Bush, and all their wonderful helpers in helping with the
> > > Boys and Girls Clubs of Southern California.
> > > Why not re-elect Hitler?
> 
> > One knows one has come up with a potent weapon against one's enemies when
> > they begin to panic visibly like this. The smell of fear is in the air.
> 
> Fear?  What fear?  I had a long and productive life before I subscribed
> here, and what with 1,000 or so programming projects awaiting me (and
> most other competent programmers), I certainly won't be wasting time
> bemoaning the fact that Sandy Sandfort "won" here, any more than I
> bemoan the fact that most wars anywhere are won by the bad guys.

Uh, Mr. Thorn, you already have wasted time in exactly that way.

> > The question is, will the ultimate internet trump card of a distractor
> > (Reference Godwin's law) divert the issue and save poor Mr. Thorn from a
> > policy which is certainly going to be a devastating impact on his public
> > exposure from here on out?
> 
> I'll tell you something else. If I have an opportunity to contribute to
> a project that can fight censorship of this kind, I will do so eagerly.

Calling the moderation plan on the table "censorship" is quite a stretch.
I'm sure it serves your rhetorical purposes, but other than that it is
merely hot air.

> OTOH, I have no "tentacles", nor will I ever have such things.  I am not
> a communications, security, O/S, or other such kind of programmer/person,
> and I will not get into those types of applications short of physically
> saving my life.  In other words, if Sandfort/Gilmore cuts me off in the
> long run, it's doubtful you'd hear from me again unless something is
> forwarded from Freedom-Knights, and even that is doubtful.
> 
> > It does amuse me that George Bush and William Bennett are thrown out
> > for fear mongering purposes before Godwin's law is invoked.
> 
> One would think you would understand the principle of using examples
> to illustrate a point.

When those examples are chosen in a logical and directed way to
accomplish the intended association, yes.  You, however, have failed on
both accounts here.

> The very idea that those names would automatic-
> ally inspire fear is amusing.

Your propaganda knowledge is sorely lacking for one who would aspire to
influence thought by invoking Hitler and Bush in consecutive sentences.  I
admire your honesty in admitting yourself that those names were poorly
chosen, however.

> > One would think Mr. Thorn had mistaken the list for a liberal stronghold.
> 
> Having read a lot of the crap put out by organizations from the KKK to
> the ADL (all scumbags BTW), I no longer take the naive position that a
> person is "liberal"

Seems your reading habits and choice of material have twisted your psyche
a bit beyond the point of reason.

> (hence, one-dimensional) or "conservative", or any
> other convenient tag.  Some people are liars, hypocrites, and assholes,
> though, and I prefer to determine that by their actions rather than
> their speculations.

You're batting 0 for 5.
 
> > Then again, no one ever accused Mr. Dale "Snake Oil" Thorn of being
> > afflicted with a strong writer's sense of audience).
> 
> You mean I don't tailor my prose to what people want to hear?

I mean you have no clue what prose is appropriate and what is not.
Selling snake oil on this list, for example.

> Better yet, I don't go somewhere else where maybe I would be more
> welcome with my ideas?

That you don't flaunt ideas clearly flawed to the experts in the field
would be a better example.

> I'm embarrassed for you, for your lack of
> imagination.  And if the "snake oil" tag refers to my ideas on
> crypto software (i.e.., PGP), well, you have a long way to go
> before you provide a serious mental challenge to me.

The bathroom is at the end of the hall.  It's not a long walk.

--
Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures
Finger for Public Key   Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern
Vote Monarchist         Switzerland

Black Unicorn wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > Black Unicorn wrote:
> > > On Sun, 5 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > > > Marc J. Wohler wrote:

[Much Unicorn drivel snipped]

> The bathroom is at the end of the hall.  It's not a long walk.

You must be in bed with Sandfort.  I can't believe you would waste all
that energy replying point-by-point to something you consider nonsense.

Of course, your claims of "nonsense" etc. are to be expected of a
security-crazed control freak who desperately wants cypherpunks
subscribers to believe in him.

I have to reject all of your contentions because:

1. You're not sincere.
2. You're not credible.
3. Your sense of history is strictly corporate, i.e., Mickey Mouse
   and Elmer Fudd.

On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:

> You must be in bed with Sandfort.

Disappointed?

--
Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures
Finger for Public Key   Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern
Vote Monarchist         Switzerland

Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li> writes:

> On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:
>
> > You must be in bed with Sandfort.
>
> Disappointed?

Are you gay, Herr Unicorn?

---

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

Black Unicorn wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > You must be in bed with Sandfort.

> Disappointed?

Not really.  I saw the pictures of his last party.  He's kinda creepy
looking.  OK for Hollywood, probably.

I'm beginning to wonder if Sandfort is taking over Gilmore's identity.
Not that I believe any of the rumours, it's just that there are peculiar
things happening at the Toad lately....

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

C'punks,

On Tue, 7 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:

> I saw the pictures of [Sandy's] last party.  He's kinda creepy
> looking.  OK for Hollywood, probably.

Thanks, Dale.  That's the look I was going for.  See, we can
agree on something.


 S a n d y

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

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

>>>>> "Dale" == Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> writes:

Dale> I'll tell you something else. If I have an opportunity to
Dale> contribute to a project that can fight censorship of this kind,
Dale> I will do so eagerly.

OK, Dale, you oppose censorship.

If you don't like the moderated version of the list, subscribe to the
unmoderated version. As long as an unmoderated version is available,
what, exactly, is the problem?

- -- 
Matt Curtin  Chief Scientist  Megasoft, Inc.  cmcurtin@research.megasoft.com
http://www.research.megasoft.com/people/cmcurtin/    I speak only for myself
Hacker Security Firewall Crypto PGP Privacy Unix Perl Java Internet Intranet

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Have you encrypted your data today?

iQEVAwUBMtGx/H6R34u/f3zNAQHgHAf7Bvmh0dzKaVMuo3vPTOJWYVKNIeIbN6OZ
fa0ZW4Z3pqkPPXB33PLHR6gr3VZKqLMV0KA2FOx3jyp0kVZz4O6BxjZdo0jQtdvX
t2XR+oE8XbFZ8oW7A/U5iPO0S7qgOMZiTNNiQdpzNaEVOnrlZWqMIHyTWgVIfyuY
DNd3ruTRKRdY7gGe2pr7lU6fkPerJQUnfyga6CRqzaeY+s8xuuLmLoGhPrdCnpRd
lCWagMgOl7UTYDhdz52HgAvQ+Zq0n7kjAfhA3YRD1YQYGKPhAr+zW/TwRVpumDsZ
zDmEPzfIq+Jlw9gqgUCUNtEr3T3ThFfKBF3/pVyxVpUE7Au5grF6xw==
=8OKB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

C Matthew Curtin wrote:
> >>>>> "Dale" == Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> writes:
> Dale> I'll tell you something else. If I have an opportunity to
> Dale> contribute to a project that can fight censorship of this kind,
> Dale> I will do so eagerly.

> OK, Dale, you oppose censorship.
> If you don't like the moderated version of the list, subscribe to the
> unmoderated version. As long as an unmoderated version is available,
> what, exactly, is the problem?

This is cool.  I get to respond to a literate question.  How unusual.

1. Sandfort is the person who would never drop an argument, no matter
   how long, until he had the last word.  I know since I went rounds
   with him a time or two.  As far as I can tell (not being a profess-
   ional psychologist), Sandy has some emotional limitations that would
   make him a poor choice to moderate such an intense list as this.
   Certainly the moderated list would still be quite intense, since
   the intent is to be a political/social forum. Sandfort unfortunately
   appears to be a special friend of Gilmore's, and I don't think John
   has taken the time to consider the outcome.

2. The only possible scheme that could work long-term would be a moderated
   list plus a deleted (excised?) list of posts which didn't make the
   moderator's cut. Having a moderated list and a full unmoderated list
   is certain to fail, and I'm not too sure that they don't have this in
   mind already.

3. Not making the unmoderated list first-up (i.e., cutting posts first,
   then making the "full" list available later) is suspicious, or at
   least a bad idea.

4. Moving everyone to the moderated list and then having people who want
   the full list unsubscribe and resubscribe is more evidence of bad
   faith.  If what Sandy says is true (I don't believe it), the vast
   majority of posts (excluding obvious spam, probably 75 or more a day)
   will be in the moderated list, therefore I think anyone can see that
   merely cutting the spam and bad flames is not the ultimate intent.
   To do that, all they would have had to do is announce a bucket where
   they're dropping the excisions, and let whoever wants them to pick
   them up from there. Maybe they thought that would make them look bad,
   but before this is over (if they continue on their present course),
   they're going to look much worse.

I just can't believe Gilmore wants to have Sandfort do this.  There's
gotta be someone he can trust who has a viable reputation.  Then again,
who with a decent reputation would want to moderate cypherpunks?

BTW, thanks for the literate reply.

On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:

> 1. Sandfort is the person who would never drop an argument, no matter
>    how long, until he had the last word.  I know since I went rounds
>    with him a time or two.  As far as I can tell (not being a profess-
>    ional psychologist), Sandy has some emotional limitations that would
>    make him a poor choice to moderate such an intense list as this.
>    Certainly the moderated list would still be quite intense, since
>    the intent is to be a political/social forum. Sandfort unfortunately
>    appears to be a special friend of Gilmore's, and I don't think John
>    has taken the time to consider the outcome.

Sandfort isn't the only one who will do this, there will be a pool of 
moderators. Regardless of your personality conflict, I am sure that Sandy 
will remain fair and allow appropriate posts from you through. i.e. 
anything to do with crypto. :)

 
> 2. The only possible scheme that could work long-term would be a moderated
>    list plus a deleted (excised?) list of posts which didn't make the
>    moderator's cut. Having a moderated list and a full unmoderated list
>    is certain to fail, and I'm not too sure that they don't have this in
>    mind already.

What makes you say that there is only one scheme that can succeed?  Why is
having a moderated list and an unmoderated list bound to fail?  The plan
actually (unless it changed without my knowlege) is to have 3 lists.  1
moderated, 1 rejects, 1 unmoderated.  This can be optimized as 1 moderated
and 1 rejects as you propose, since asking for all is the same as asking
for moderated+rejects. 

> 3. Not making the unmoderated list first-up (i.e., cutting posts first,
>    then making the "full" list available later) is suspicious, or at
>    least a bad idea.

What difference does it make if a message is delayed for 10-30 minutes?  
Why is it a bad idea or suspicious?  If you post something and it doesn't 
make it at all, you can complain about it.  Is that what you fear?

The point was to optimize the sendmail to send moderated messages first.

> 4. Moving everyone to the moderated list and then having people who want
>    the full list unsubscribe and resubscribe is more evidence of bad
>    faith.  If what Sandy says is true (I don't believe it), the vast
>    majority of posts (excluding obvious spam, probably 75 or more a day)
>    will be in the moderated list, therefore I think anyone can see that
>    merely cutting the spam and bad flames is not the ultimate intent.
>    To do that, all they would have had to do is announce a bucket where
>    they're dropping the excisions, and let whoever wants them to pick
>    them up from there. Maybe they thought that would make them look bad,
>    but before this is over (if they continue on their present course),
>    they're going to look much worse.


Bad faith comes from the thousands of unsubscrive and such messages 
posted here.  People have no clue as how to do things.

In the interest of cutting the crap off this list which has virtually 
brought the list down to its knees because of our friendly KOTM dude, it 
is best to bring a bit of civility here.  If people want to see crap, let 
them subscribe to it.

It's bad enough to have spammers and advertisers on a list, but if we have
the majority of the subscribers immune to their spams, the spam will die. 
If everyone had the ability to filter out commercials, especially the
annoying ones, advertisers would go away.  The difference here is that the
ads don't support the station with $, they flood it with crap which
alienates discussions. 

> I just can't believe Gilmore wants to have Sandfort do this.  There's
> gotta be someone he can trust who has a viable reputation.  Then again,
> who with a decent reputation would want to moderate cypherpunks?

You have a personal problem with Sandford, it doesn't mean that Sandy 
will be unable to be a perfectly able moderator.  I'm sure Sandy will do 
a fine job, but that is my oppinion and it doesn't match yours.  From the 
looks of it, it's more the case that this is a clash of egoes rather than 
a complaint about the moderation.

=====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos==============
.+.^.+.|  Ray Arachelian    | "If  you're  gonna die,  die  with your|./|\.
..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com|boots on;  If you're  gonna  try,  just |/\|/\
<--*-->| ------------------ |stick around; Gonna cry? Just move along|\/|\/
../|\..| "A toast to Odin,  |you're gonna die, you're gonna die!"    |.\|/.
.+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"|  --Iron Maiden "Die With Your Boots on"|.....
======================== http://www.sundernet.com =========================

Ray Arachelian wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:
> 
> > 1. Sandfort is the person who would never drop an argument, no matter
> >    how long, until he had the last word.  I know since I went rounds
>
> Sandfort isn't the only one who will do this, there will be a pool of
> moderators. Regardless of your personality conflict, I am sure that Sandy
> will remain fair and allow appropriate posts from you through. i.e.
> anything to do with crypto. :)

Come on, the de facto topics of this list aren't limited to crypto.

I'd just like to say that as disgusting as I find most of Dale's posts,
I consider almost all of them appropriate for the list.

[The referenced post isn't one of them, of course.]

Is the goal really to be a "best of cypherpunks," or is it just to cut out the 
most inane trolling (of which there is a lot)? While I'd classify Dale's posts 
as among "worst of cypherpunks," IMO they are all at least *of* cypherpunks.

I would not favor a moderation policy that gave carte blanche to "good guys" 
to talk about whatever they wanted ("libertarian bullshit" in Chudov's 
delicate phrasing), but required posts by "bad guys" like Dale (and in certain 
threads, me -- you never know) to be "about crypto." That's a hypocritical 
double standard.

I just want the complete crap out of the way. I was envisioning a mostly 
unfiltered cypherpunks where the traffic level remained so high that the 
filtered "best of" lists like fcpunx were still in demand.

Of course, I'm reading cypherpunks only a couple times a day via nntp, so I'm 
more tolerant of nonsense than people who want to follow the list as an email 
list. To those people I'd say sorry, but cryptography@c2.net is available. But 
I'm only one voice; the moderators can do whatever they want.

-rich

Jew-hating paranoid liar Rich Graves <rcgraves@disposable.com> writes:
>
> I would not favor a moderation policy that gave carte blanche to "good guys"
> to talk about whatever they wanted ("libertarian bullshit" in Chudov's
> delicate phrasing), but required posts by "bad guys" like Dale (and in certai
> threads, me -- you never know) to be "about crypto." That's a hypocritical
> double standard.

Here's another typical post from Igor's soc.culture.russian.moderated (NOT).

Igor Chudov, a moderator of s.c.r.m, calls M. Kagalenko "envious eunich", but
Kagalenko has been banned from posting to s.c.r.m because he objected to its
creation (i.e. he's on the "blacklist" and his submissions are auto-rejected).

]From: mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko)
]Newsgroups: soc.culture.russian,alt.genius.bill-palmer
]Subject: Re: Envious Eunuch's E-Mail Evacuations
]Message-ID: <5audbm$4vf@lynx.dac.neu.edu>
]Date: 7 Jan 1997 15:57:26 -0500
]Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA
]
]Henrietta Thomas (hkt@wwa.com) wrote:
]]
]][newsgroups trimmed]
]]
]]ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) wrote:
]]
]]>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
]]
]]>[crossposted to alt.genius.bill-palmer]
]]
]]>Prof. Henrietta K. Thomas wrote:
]]
]]Professor, eh? Well, well, well......
]]
]]>> >That's right, Mike;  I'll give you the bad news right here in
]]>> >soc.culture.russian, since in your e-mailing, you claimed to
]]>> >speak for--NOT MICHAEL KAGALENKO, EUNUCH--but the entire
]]>> >s.c.r. readership, in trying to run me off because you were
]]>> >infuriated by a recent posting of mine.
]]>>
]]>> Well, I don't know about the entire readership, but he certainly
]]>> speaks for me in this regard.
]]
]]>Envious Eunuch Kagalenko surely does NOT speak for me and many of my
]]>acquaintainces. We support Bill's struggle against the mischievous
]]>censorous eunuch.
]]
]]You're just angry 'cause Kagalenko tried to crash your machine.
]
] Correction; if I have tried to crash Chudov's computer, it would have been
] crashed. I'd venture to guess that getting root on his Linux box
] wouldn't be all that hard, either.
]
](Followups to sc.r.moderasted)
]
]Couldn't honour it, as I am permanently banned from there.
]
]
]--
]ABILITY,n. The natural equipment to accomplish some small part of the meaner
]           ambitions distinguishing able men from dead ones.
]                -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
]

---

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

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> 
> Jew-hating paranoid liar Rich Graves <rcgraves@disposable.com> writes:
> >
> > I would not favor a moderation policy that gave carte blanche to "good guys"
> > to talk about whatever they wanted ("libertarian bullshit" in Chudov's
> > delicate phrasing), but required posts by "bad guys" like Dale (and in certai
> > threads, me -- you never know) to be "about crypto." That's a hypocritical
> > double standard.
> 
> Here's another typical post from Igor's soc.culture.russian.moderated (NOT).
> 
> Igor Chudov, a moderator of s.c.r.m, calls M. Kagalenko "envious eunich", but
> Kagalenko has been banned from posting to s.c.r.m because he objected to its
> creation (i.e. he's on the "blacklist" and his submissions are auto-rejected).

but none of the posts in question had ever been posted to scrm.

I do not see what your example is supposed to illustrate.

	- Igor.

> ]From: mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko)
> ]Newsgroups: soc.culture.russian,alt.genius.bill-palmer
> ]Subject: Re: Envious Eunuch's E-Mail Evacuations
> ]Message-ID: <5audbm$4vf@lynx.dac.neu.edu>
> ]Date: 7 Jan 1997 15:57:26 -0500
> ]Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA
> ]
> ]Henrietta Thomas (hkt@wwa.com) wrote:
> ]]
> ]][newsgroups trimmed]
> ]]
> ]]ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) wrote:
> ]]
> ]]>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> ]]
> ]]>[crossposted to alt.genius.bill-palmer]
> ]]
> ]]>Prof. Henrietta K. Thomas wrote:
> ]]
> ]]Professor, eh? Well, well, well......
> ]]
> ]]>> >That's right, Mike;  I'll give you the bad news right here in
> ]]>> >soc.culture.russian, since in your e-mailing, you claimed to
> ]]>> >speak for--NOT MICHAEL KAGALENKO, EUNUCH--but the entire
> ]]>> >s.c.r. readership, in trying to run me off because you were
> ]]>> >infuriated by a recent posting of mine.
> ]]>>
> ]]>> Well, I don't know about the entire readership, but he certainly
> ]]>> speaks for me in this regard.
> ]]
> ]]>Envious Eunuch Kagalenko surely does NOT speak for me and many of my
> ]]>acquaintainces. We support Bill's struggle against the mischievous
> ]]>censorous eunuch.
> ]]
> ]]You're just angry 'cause Kagalenko tried to crash your machine.
> ]
> ] Correction; if I have tried to crash Chudov's computer, it would have been
> ] crashed. I'd venture to guess that getting root on his Linux box
> ] wouldn't be all that hard, either.
> ]
> ](Followups to sc.r.moderasted)
> ]
> ]Couldn't honour it, as I am permanently banned from there.
> ]
> ]
> ]--
> ]ABILITY,n. The natural equipment to accomplish some small part of the meaner
> ]           ambitions distinguishing able men from dead ones.
> ]                -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
> ]
> 
> ---
> 
> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
> Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
> 



	- Igor.

ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:
>
> I do not see what your example is supposed to illustrate.

They're supposed to illustrate what will happen soon on the moderated
"cypher punks" mailing list.

---

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

On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> > 
> > Jew-hating paranoid liar Rich Graves <rcgraves@disposable.com> writes:
> > >
> > > I would not favor a moderation policy that gave carte blanche to "good guys"
> > > to talk about whatever they wanted ("libertarian bullshit" in Chudov's
> > > delicate phrasing), but required posts by "bad guys" like Dale (and in certai
> > > threads, me -- you never know) to be "about crypto." That's a hypocritical
> > > double standard.
> > 
> > Here's another typical post from Igor's soc.culture.russian.moderated (NOT).
> > 
> > Igor Chudov, a moderator of s.c.r.m, calls M. Kagalenko "envious eunich", but
> > Kagalenko has been banned from posting to s.c.r.m because he objected to its
> > creation (i.e. he's on the "blacklist" and his submissions are auto-rejected).
> 
> but none of the posts in question had ever been posted to scrm.

	You know well that Kagalenko is most rejected in scrm,
	Poor guy ...not one post, how can that be..?

> I do not see what your example is supposed to illustrate.

	Certain posters are 'discouraged' to post to scrm.

	nurdane oksas
> 
> 	- Igor.
> 
> > ]From: mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko)
> > ]Newsgroups: soc.culture.russian,alt.genius.bill-palmer
> > ]Subject: Re: Envious Eunuch's E-Mail Evacuations
> > ]Message-ID: <5audbm$4vf@lynx.dac.neu.edu>
> > ]Date: 7 Jan 1997 15:57:26 -0500
> > ]Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA
> > ]
> > ]Henrietta Thomas (hkt@wwa.com) wrote:
> > ]]
> > ]][newsgroups trimmed]
> > ]]
> > ]]ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) wrote:
> > ]]
> > ]]>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > ]]
> > ]]>[crossposted to alt.genius.bill-palmer]
> > ]]
> > ]]>Prof. Henrietta K. Thomas wrote:
> > ]]
> > ]]Professor, eh? Well, well, well......
> > ]]
> > ]]>> >That's right, Mike;  I'll give you the bad news right here in
> > ]]>> >soc.culture.russian, since in your e-mailing, you claimed to
> > ]]>> >speak for--NOT MICHAEL KAGALENKO, EUNUCH--but the entire
> > ]]>> >s.c.r. readership, in trying to run me off because you were
> > ]]>> >infuriated by a recent posting of mine.
> > ]]>>
> > ]]>> Well, I don't know about the entire readership, but he certainly
> > ]]>> speaks for me in this regard.
> > ]]
> > ]]>Envious Eunuch Kagalenko surely does NOT speak for me and many of my
> > ]]>acquaintainces. We support Bill's struggle against the mischievous
> > ]]>censorous eunuch.
> > ]]
> > ]]You're just angry 'cause Kagalenko tried to crash your machine.
> > ]
> > ] Correction; if I have tried to crash Chudov's computer, it would have been
> > ] crashed. I'd venture to guess that getting root on his Linux box
> > ] wouldn't be all that hard, either.
> > ]
> > ](Followups to sc.r.moderasted)
> > ]
> > ]Couldn't honour it, as I am permanently banned from there.
> > ]
> > ]
> > ]--
> > ]ABILITY,n. The natural equipment to accomplish some small part of the meaner
> > ]           ambitions distinguishing able men from dead ones.
> > ]                -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
> > ]
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
> > Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 	- Igor.
>

Nurdane Oksas wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> > > 
> > > Jew-hating paranoid liar Rich Graves <rcgraves@disposable.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > I would not favor a moderation policy that gave carte blanche to "good guys"
> > > > to talk about whatever they wanted ("libertarian bullshit" in Chudov's
> > > > delicate phrasing), but required posts by "bad guys" like Dale (and in certai
> > > > threads, me -- you never know) to be "about crypto." That's a hypocritical
> > > > double standard.
> > > 
> > > Here's another typical post from Igor's soc.culture.russian.moderated (NOT).
> > > 
> > > Igor Chudov, a moderator of s.c.r.m, calls M. Kagalenko "envious eunich", but
> > > Kagalenko has been banned from posting to s.c.r.m because he objected to its
> > > creation (i.e. he's on the "blacklist" and his submissions are auto-rejected).
> > 
> > but none of the posts in question had ever been posted to scrm.
> 
> 	You know well that Kagalenko is most rejected in scrm,
> 	Poor guy ...not one post, how can that be..?

How can that be? A good question. It can be because Misha submits
dozens of articles containing autogenerated garbage. He does it because
he does not like our newsgroup. We moderators have no other choice
but to reject these autogenerated articles because our charter prohibits
us from approving them.

To protect moderators from mailbombing our charter tells us to put
such mailbombers into our blacklist, which I do.

Once a month I remove Misha from our blacklist, and let him know that
he indeed had been removed. That usually results in another flood of
bogus submissions.

Apparently Misha likes it this way, and it probably lets him feel more
important than he really is. Well, if that is so, I have no problem with
that.

Check out http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov/usenet/scrm/archive/maillist.html

Otherwise, if Misha decides that he wants to post anything of substance, 
a single request from him to remove him from our blacklist would suffice.
I do not need to keep him blacklisted as long as he does not mailbomb us.

But I will not bow to him.

That's the sad story.

	- Igor.

On Sun, 12 Jan 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> Nurdane Oksas wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> > > Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> > > > Jew-hating paranoid liar Rich Graves <rcgraves@disposable.com> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > I would not favor a moderation policy that gave carte blanche to "good guys"
> > > > > to talk about whatever they wanted ("libertarian bullshit" in Chudov's
> > > > > delicate phrasing), but required posts by "bad guys" like Dale (and in certai
> > > > > threads, me -- you never know) to be "about crypto." That's a hypocritical
> > > > > double standard.
> > > > 
> > > > Here's another typical post from Igor's soc.culture.russian.moderated (NOT).
> > > > 
> > > > Igor Chudov, a moderator of s.c.r.m, calls M. Kagalenko "envious eunich", but
> > > > Kagalenko has been banned from posting to s.c.r.m because he objected to its
> > > > creation (i.e. he's on the "blacklist" and his submissions are auto-rejected).
> > > 
> > > but none of the posts in question had ever been posted to scrm.
> > 
> > 	You know well that Kagalenko is most rejected in scrm,
> > 	Poor guy ...not one post, how can that be..?
> 
> How can that be? A good question. It can be because Misha submits
> dozens of articles containing autogenerated garbage. He does it because
> he does not like our newsgroup. We moderators have no other choice
> but to reject these autogenerated articles because our charter prohibits
> us from approving them.

	Sure.

> To protect moderators from mailbombing our charter tells us to put
> such mailbombers into our blacklist, which I do.

	OK.
 
> Once a month I remove Misha from our blacklist, and let him know that
> he indeed had been removed. That usually results in another flood of
> bogus submissions.

	Well, i trust your judgment, not sure of other moderators.
 
[...]
> Apparently Misha likes it this way, and it probably lets him feel more
> important than he really is. Well, if that is so, I have no problem with
> that.
> 
> But I will not bow to him.

	:)

> That's the sad story.

	Thank you .

ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:

> Nurdane Oksas wrote:
> > 	You know well that Kagalenko is most rejected in scrm,
> > 	Poor guy ...not one post, how can that be..?
>
> How can that be? A good question. It can be because Misha submits
> dozens of articles containing autogenerated garbage. He does it because

How do you know his submissions are "autogenerated" and not typed in by hand?

> he does not like our newsgroup. We moderators have no other choice
> but to reject these autogenerated articles because our charter prohibits
> us from approving them.

But the charter does not stop the moderators from calling K. "eunich",
just like the proposed "cypher punk" moderation won't stop Timmy May
from calling Dave Hayes "colored" or me "crazy Russian" or Plucky Green
from calling me and aga "vermin".

Please define "autogenerated" and "garbage". What definition does your
charter use to prohibit you from approving them? Why did you approve
Misha's submissions for a while after s.c.r.m was created? Has your
charter been since amended?

I too submitted a few articles to s.c.r.m as a test. The first one was
rejected (anonymously, by the way) with a statement indicating that I'm
not welcome to post anything in s.c.r.m regardless of content. The
others just vanished in a black hole - they didn't show up in the feed,
and I got no rejection notices. It looks like I've been blacklisted too.

That's why the lovebirds Gilmore and Sandfart want to moderate this list.

Again, this reminds me how around Xmastime there was a mail loop involving
the "cypher punks" mailing list and the site "uhf.wirenet.net", which
kept recycling old posts and resubmitting them to the list. In particular,
several of my articles appeared multiple times. Unfortunately, mail loops
happen. One of my mailing lists has been up since '89 and had probably
3 or 4 mail loops - caused by software glitches, not anyone sabotage.

Ray Arachelian officially accused me of having caused the mail loop and
posted instructions for complaining to my upstream site (not that PSI
gives a fuck) - both to the (currently unmoderated) "cypher punks"
list and Ray's "filtered" version.  I replied and refuted Ray's lies.

My refutation never made it to Ray's filtered list - only to this
(still unmoderated) list. Now Gilmore and Sandfart want to take away
their victims' ability to refute their libels (at least partially) by
moderating this list as well and blacklisting their victims.

No wonder Ray Arachelian's accusations have never been retracted by
him or Gilmore, and no explanation of the ufh.wirenet.net mail loop
other than "the Vulis did it" has been offered; no wonder we now see
traffic from root@ufh.wirenet.net calling for moderation and blacklisting.

> To protect moderators from mailbombing our charter tells us to put
> such mailbombers into our blacklist, which I do.

Beautiful. I'm already on Timmy May's "don't hire" list. Who do you think
will be on Gilmore's and Sandfart's autorejection blacklist for "cypher
punks"? I suppose it'll include:
                aga
                Attila T. Hun
                Dale Thorn
                Dave Hayes
                Dorothy Denning (just in case)
                Dr. Dimitri V. (myself)
                Fred Cohen
                George S.
                Ross Wright
                Steve Boursy
                Toto
Any others whose submissions will be automatically discarded by Gilmore?

ObCocksuckerMention: asshole censor John Gilmore is a stupid cocksucker.

---

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

Ray Arachelian wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > 2. The only possible scheme that could work long-term would be a moderated
> >    list plus a deleted (excised?) list of posts which didn't make the
> >    moderator's cut. Having a moderated list and a full unmoderated list
> >    is certain to fail, and I'm not too sure that they don't have this in
> >    mind already.
> 
> What makes you say that there is only one scheme that can succeed?  Why is
> having a moderated list and an unmoderated list bound to fail?  The plan
> actually (unless it changed without my knowlege) is to have 3 lists.  1
> moderated, 1 rejects, 1 unmoderated.  This can be optimized as 1 moderated
> and 1 rejects as you propose, since asking for all is the same as asking
> for moderated+rejects. 

Does not the moderated list, moderated by YOU, already exist? 

I am confused.

	- Igor.

> > 3. Not making the unmoderated list first-up (i.e., cutting posts first,
> >    then making the "full" list available later) is suspicious, or at
> >    least a bad idea.
> 
> What difference does it make if a message is delayed for 10-30 minutes?  
> Why is it a bad idea or suspicious?  If you post something and it doesn't 

It is indeed suspicious because it raises a possibility of
concealed human involvement.

> The point was to optimize the sendmail to send moderated messages first.

What does that optimise if there is a more or less continuous traffic?

That's a non-answer.

	- Igor.

On Fri, 10 Jan 1997 ichudov@algebra.com wrote:

> Does not the moderated list, moderated by YOU, already exist? 
> 
> I am confused.

It is not the only one, however it doesn't run at the toad.com level.
 
> > What difference does it make if a message is delayed for 10-30 minutes?  
> > Why is it a bad idea or suspicious?  If you post something and it doesn't 
> 
> It is indeed suspicious because it raises a possibility of
> concealed human involvement.

What kind of concealed human involvement?  Running a raw list + a 
moderated list doubles the traffic.  Running a moderated + flames list 
keeps the traffic the same.  What's there to conceal when a flames list 
exists?
 
If your threat model is that paranoid, what's to stop someone now from 
intercepting traffic from toad.com from the sendmail queues?  Mail gets 
sent (typically, not sure about toad) every 15 minutes, that's enough 
time for human interaction.  What's the difference?

> > The point was to optimize the sendmail to send moderated messages first.
> 
> What does that optimise if there is a more or less continuous traffic?

> That's a non-answer.

Cute, ask a question, then answer it yourself for me?  If there is 
continous traffic, it's because of the flames that are autogenerated.  
There's been a rare day when there has ever been continous traffic.

=====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos==============
.+.^.+.|  Ray Arachelian    | "If  you're  gonna die,  die  with your|./|\.
..\|/..|sunder@sundernet.com|boots on;  If you're  gonna  try,  just |/\|/\
<--*-->| ------------------ |stick around; Gonna cry? Just move along|\/|\/
../|\..| "A toast to Odin,  |you're gonna die, you're gonna die!"    |.\|/.
.+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"|  --Iron Maiden "Die With Your Boots on"|.....
======================== http://www.sundernet.com =========================

Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> Does not the moderated list, moderated by YOU, already exist?
> I am confused.

> It is indeed suspicious because it raises a possibility of
> concealed human involvement.

> That's a non-answer.

Igor,
 Some days I print your postings and file them away for future 
reference. Other days, I want to cyber-shoot your sorry ass.
 Either way, I regard you as a valuable member of CypherPunks
for the reason that you're not about to lay down on the tracks
and let the train run over you, just because of a 'purported'
goal of protecting you from the 'bad' people.
 History has taught us that when the witch-hunt starts, everyone
with a broom is suspect.

Toto

Toto wrote:
> Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> > Does not the moderated list, moderated by YOU, already exist?
> > I am confused.
> > It is indeed suspicious because it raises a possibility of
> > concealed human involvement.
> > That's a non-answer.

>  Some days I print your postings and file them away for future
> reference. Other days, I want to cyber-shoot your sorry ass.
>  Either way, I regard you as a valuable member of CypherPunks
> for the reason that you're not about to lay down on the tracks
> and let the train run over you, just because of a 'purported'
> goal of protecting you from the 'bad' people. History has taught us
> that when the witch-hunt starts, everyone with a broom is suspect.

Just a comment. Igor indeed is one of the most intelligent and reasoned
posters here. Sorry I can't say the same for all.  Point is, Igor wants
to believe he can reason with the rabid dogs on this moderation issue.

A quote from Star Trek: "Command and compassion is a fool's mixture".

Ray Arachelian <sunder@brainlink.com> writes:

> > 3. Not making the unmoderated list first-up (i.e., cutting posts first,
> >    then making the "full" list available later) is suspicious, or at
> >    least a bad idea.
> 
> What difference does it make if a message is delayed for 10-30 minutes?  
> Why is it a bad idea or suspicious?  If you post something and it doesn't 
> make it at all, you can complain about it.  Is that what you fear?

10-30 minutes is potentially far less than it would take.  What about
mail that arrives in the middle of the night, or what if all the
moderators are away or busy.

If you really want to filter cypherpunks@toad.com by default, fine.
But is it too much to ask for those of us who don't want the filtering
to request an unmoderated, undelayed list, with all headers intact
(someone had suggested Approved headers be removed)?

Remember, other people may want to run differently moderated versions
of the list.  If you add delay before secondary moderators can even
get the stuff, you are unfairly penalizing those who use a better or
more efficient filtering scheme, because those people will have to
wait for the central authorities' moderation decisions before even
their own moderators or auto-moderators get ahold of messages.

> The point was to optimize the sendmail to send moderated messages first.

Fine for those who want the moderation, but why are you forcing
everyone to use this scheme?

There are plenty of moderation schemes that are way more cypherpunk
than one central moderation authority.  NoCeM is one great example.
Obviously some people don't have the right software to experiment with
this--fine they can subscribe to a centrally moderated list.  But why
not let those of us who write code experiment with other ways of
moderating the list?  Please.

What does it cost anyone to have a separate mailing list which
immediately gets all cypherpunks submissions?  The only argument
against this is "load", but that doesn't make sense.  First of all, if
someone subscribes to cypherpunks-raw instead of cypherpunks and
cypherpunks-flames, the total number of messages is the same, and the
amount of bandwith you might lose to split mult-RCPT messages is
negligiable (and could easily be recouped by switching mailers, though
that shouldn't even be necessary).

More importantly, if some significant number of people really do want
to subscribe to cypherpunks-raw (as in enough that you would even
start to think about load), then maybe centralized moderation is not
the way to go.

What is the advantage of not having a cypherpunks-raw?  I just don't
understand it.  It costs you nothing, it shows your willingness to
compete with other moderators or moderation schemes, and it will make
people a lot more confident that you aren't suppressing some messages
from cypherpunks-flames list.

If for some reason load really is the problem (though I can't see
how), then can you set some maximum number of subscribers you would be
willing to mail cypherpunks-raw to?  I mean 50 people shouldn't be
that big a deal, right?  And if more than 50 want to subscribe and you
think toad can't handle the load, I will run a mail exploder on a
different machine.

Hi again:

Upon rereading comments in favor of no moderation, it occured to me that a
possible solution that will make most people  happy:

How about, we have
cypherpunks-raw: unmoderated 110% SPAM
cypherpunks: moderated by Sandy and other moderator.

Then, if the moderator approve pool for cypherpunks is crosslinked to
cypherpunks-raw (two way link), we have the best of both worlds. People
who want to experiment with filtering software can do that, and people who
want the SPAM and off subject garbage to go away can do that.

Bernie

Bernie Doehner writes:
> 
> Hi again:
> 
> Upon rereading comments in favor of no moderation, it occured to me that a
> possible solution that will make most people  happy:
> 
> How about, we have
> cypherpunks-raw: unmoderated 110% SPAM
> cypherpunks: moderated by Sandy and other moderator.

That was the original proposal.
Now that the 'discussion' has come around full circle, can we
stop talking about it and DO it?


-- 
Eric Murray  ericm@lne.com  ericm@motorcycle.com  http://www.lne.com/ericm
PGP keyid:E03F65E5 fingerprint:50 B0 A2 4C 7D 86 FC 03  92 E8 AC E6 7E 27 29 AF

> That was the original proposal.
> Now that the 'discussion' has come around full circle, can we
> stop talking about it and DO it?
> 

Oops!  Sorry. I lost this discussion in the middle of all the SPAM!

Yes, please do it!

Bernie

System Administrator <root@uhf.wireless.net> writes:

> > That was the original proposal.
> > Now that the 'discussion' has come around full circle, can we
> > stop talking about it and DO it?
> >
>
> Oops!  Sorry. I lost this discussion in the middle of all the SPAM!
>
> Yes, please do it!
>
> Bernie

A few weeks ago, every message sent to the "cypher punks" was re-sent
again and again and again by "crypto@uhf.wireless.net".  Ray Arachelian
officially blamed me for the mail loop and even complained to my upstream
feed about multiple copies of my articles. Ray's lies were never retracted
by Ray himself or John "cocksucker" Gilmore.

Now root@uhf.wireless.net posts multiple rants in favor of moderation.

---

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

Rich Graves wrote:
> Is the goal really to be a "best of cypherpunks," or is it just to cut out the
> most inane trolling (of which there is a lot)? While I'd classify Dale's posts
> as among "worst of cypherpunks," IMO they are all at least *of* cypherpunks.
 
> I just want the complete crap out of the way. I was envisioning a mostly
> unfiltered cypherpunks where the traffic level remained so high that the
> filtered "best of" lists like fcpunx were still in demand.

Rich,
 I totally agree with you.

 I sometimes drop a private email to someone, commenting on how much I
enjoyed one of their posts, or complimenting them on presenting what
they had to say clearly and concisely enough that even a numbskull
such as myself could understand it.  Often, after sending it, I will
realize it is the same guy I lambasted a few days earlier for being
such a shithole-idiot-dweeb in one of his postings.

 Personally, I find it amazing that it seems to be those who are most
enamored of themselves as the serious, cypto-elite of the list who 
are the least cognizant of how silly they appear (to me) in begging
for some mother-hen/higher-authority to make the 'bad kids' sit still
in their seats.
 I find it absolutely astounding, as well, that I am sitting here 
watching the same process take place on this list that everyone
here seems to be so terribly fired-up about when it happens in
the world outside of this list. (Some 'outsider' tweaks the nose of
our ambassador and, suddenly, we are firing on the citizens in order
to defend our flag.)

 Dale, as you point out, didn't 'sneak under the fence' in the middle
of the night. He is a member of this list who has contributed more 
than a few posts that I have saved or printed out (and filed beside
those of some who are already building a scaffold for him in their
minds).
 I am disgusted by some of the behavior and self-righteous missives
of some of the people who lay claim to be of superior stature to 
Dale in this conference, but who act either like children, or like
a pack of rabid dogs in expressing their profound belief that 
they are somehow aligned with the force of 'righteousness' that 
will slay the 'evil' ones on this list.
  (Your days are numbered/You're history, pal/etc.)
 I was particularly dismayed at seeing Ray Archelian, whom I have
developed a certain amount of respect for, stooping to 'jack off'
in Dale's face, so to speak.

  Lastly, I find it totally ludicrous that people who purport to be
beings of 'reason' are babbling on and on about 'votes' of confidence,
etc., on a matter that was determined and announced without asking 
for any kind of approval on their part, and laying out complicated
'systems' and 'future scenarios' for placing all of the missives in
restricted, cypher-politically correct boxes.
  To tell the truth, given all of the 'shifted-reality' postings 
since the 'announcement', if I see a question on the list as to
whether or not a posting is acceptable if it says, "John Gilmore
is a cocksucker." in 'binary'...
   Well, I would be hard pressed to figure out if it was meant as 
humor or as a serious question.

Toto

Against Moderation wrote:

AM,
 The points you raise below are valid ones, as opposed to some of the
perceived 'parting shots' by those 'voting' for moderation in 
anticipation of the Iron Boot descending (on 'others', of course).
 I find it interesting that you keep refering to 'not understanding'
some of the purported reasons behind the proposed system. I am
finding myself getting the feeling that there is some underlying
future purpose or direction behind the 'changes' that is not being
fully revealed.
 Perhaps my sense of smell is declining in my old-age, but I'm getting
an odor that doesn't match with the dinner menu that has been 
announced.

Toto
> 10-30 minutes is potentially far less than it would take.  What about
> mail that arrives in the middle of the night, or what if all the
> moderators are away or busy.

> If you add delay before secondary moderators can even
> get the stuff, you are unfairly penalizing those who use a better or
> more efficient filtering scheme

> Fine for those who want the moderation, but why are you forcing
> everyone to use this scheme?
> 
> There are plenty of moderation schemes that are way more cypherpunk
> than one central moderation authority.
>  But why not let those of us who write code experiment with other 
ways of moderating the list?  Please.
> 
> What does it cost anyone to have a separate mailing list which
> immediately gets all cypherpunks submissions?  The only argument
> against this is "load", but that doesn't make sense.
> 
> More importantly, if some significant number of people really do want
> to subscribe to cypherpunks-raw (as in enough that you would even
> start to think about load), then maybe centralized moderation is not
> the way to go.
> 
> What is the advantage of not having a cypherpunks-raw?  I just don't
> understand it.  It costs you nothing, it shows your willingness to
> compete with other moderators or moderation schemes, and it will make
> people a lot more confident that you aren't suppressing some messages
> from cypherpunks-flames list.
>

Against Moderation wrote:
> Ray Arachelian <sunder@brainlink.com> writes:
> > > 3. Not making the unmoderated list first-up (i.e., cutting posts first,
> > >    then making the "full" list available later) is suspicious, or at
> > >    least a bad idea.[snip]
> What is the advantage of not having a cypherpunks-raw?  I just don't
> understand it.  It costs you nothing, it shows your willingness to
> compete with other moderators or moderation schemes, and it will make
> people a lot more confident that you aren't suppressing some messages
> from cypherpunks-flames list.
> If for some reason load really is the problem (though I can't see
> how), then can you set some maximum number of subscribers you would be
> willing to mail cypherpunks-raw to?  I mean 50 people shouldn't be
> that big a deal, right?  And if more than 50 want to subscribe and you
> think toad can't handle the load, I will run a mail exploder on a
> different machine.

Great ideas, but if I had to bet money, I'd place my bets with
Dr. Vulis on what lies behind their real reasoning.

Rich Graves wrote:
[snip]
> I'd just like to say that as disgusting as I find most of Dale's posts,
> I consider almost all of them appropriate for the list.
> While I'd classify Dale's posts as among "worst of cypherpunks,"
> IMO they are all at least *of* cypherpunks.

Rich, you have to have a mind to comment on my posts.  To call my
posts disgusting, when I as a person am  1) Vastly more concerned
about justice, truth, and openness than you, and  2) Vastly more
intelligent than you, is pure ignorance and hypocrisy.

When you have nothing to say, you do the "attack against the man",
which is a logical fallacy.  You and Sandfort can lie in bed together
on that one.  Punk.

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

For example, I think this message could have been worded in such a way that
it was on-topic. Dale really had to exert himself to make this a pure flame.
When he doesn't put so much effort into it, he's worth reading.

See also http://minerva.fileita.it/webitalia/netscum/gravesr0.html

- -rich

On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:

> Rich Graves wrote:
> [snip]
> > I'd just like to say that as disgusting as I find most of Dale's posts,
> > I consider almost all of them appropriate for the list.
> > While I'd classify Dale's posts as among "worst of cypherpunks,"
> > IMO they are all at least *of* cypherpunks.
> 
> Rich, you have to have a mind to comment on my posts.  To call my
> posts disgusting, when I as a person am  1) Vastly more concerned
> about justice, truth, and openness than you, and  2) Vastly more
> intelligent than you, is pure ignorance and hypocrisy.
> 
> When you have nothing to say, you do the "attack against the man",
> which is a logical fallacy.  You and Sandfort can lie in bed together
> on that one.  Punk.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQBVAwUBMtgFrZNcNyVVy0jxAQHipAH/WS2VkTlWbf3ttMBUcq1sRXY1sJbNWJ5G
aR6T6ZWD0iJQVKD5X8/9QPUBl2MUdml3xS1f5MH+pynY63OEfPTg0Q==
=7+Je
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Rich Graves wrote:
> For example, I think this message could have been worded in such a way that
> it was on-topic. Dale really had to exert himself to make this a pure flame.
> When he doesn't put so much effort into it, he's worth reading.
> See also http://minerva.fileita.it/webitalia/netscum/gravesr0.html
> On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > [snip]
> > Rich, you have to have a mind to comment on my posts.  To call my
> > posts disgusting, when I as a person am  1) Vastly more concerned
> > about justice, truth, and openness than you, and  2) Vastly more
> > intelligent than you, is pure ignorance and hypocrisy.
> > When you have nothing to say, you do the "attack against the man",
> > which is a logical fallacy.  You and Sandfort can lie in bed together
> > on that one.  Punk.

This was a rather harsh reply.  Thank you (I think) for whatever
allowance you have seen fit to give me.  OTOH, I'd suggest for Rich
and all of the pro-Sandy faction that they sit on their replies for
a couple of hours before hitting "send", just in case the emotional
(not passionate, there's a difference) content needs a little editing.

Dale Thorn wrote:

> 2. The only possible scheme that could work long-term would be a moderated
>    list plus a deleted (excised?) list of posts which didn't make the
>    moderator's cut.

Dale,
 I love your attitude, and I enjoy many of your posts.  I also love
being
able to laugh at you for getting sucked into the oldest trick in the
book.
 In the ruins of Rome, you will find a Chariot Dealership which sold
both
Pontiac and Chevy Chariots. Once they had you on their sales lot, they 
would attempt to get you sucked into a mindset where your choices were
limited to choosing between 'their' chariots.
  Our political sytem is a grand 'play' in which the Democrats and the
Republicans 'contend' to see who gets to slip us the cold, hard one.
The bottom line, is that what is dripping out of your butt is either
a Democrat's sperm and a Republican's saliva, or vice-versa.

>    Having a moderated list and a full unmoderated list
>    is certain to fail, and I'm not too sure that they don't have this in
>    mind already.

  Have I misjudged you?
  Could it possibly be that you can still hear the small whisper in the 
wind that warns you that it's all done with mirrors?
  "Believe nothing of what you hear, only half of what you see, and if
you
meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!"
   Bubba Rom Dos

Toto

Marc J. Wohler sez:
> 
> I have the utmost confidence  in Sandy and his efforts to revive the
> quality of our list.

Metoo....

The alternative was to unsub.


-- 
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

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

>>>>> "Igor" == Igor Chudov @ home <ichudov@algebra.com> writes:

Igor> Moderation may or may not be a good idea, but it is important
Igor> that readership keeps a close eye on their rulers.

I certainly agree, and would venture a guess that Sandy would also
agree. After all, doesn't the proposal also include a completely
unfiltered version of the list, as well as a list made up of messages
that the moderator rejected?

Some of the most interesting projects to combat spam and other
nonsense recently have tended to focus on ways to allow folks the
ability to choose whose judgement they want to trust, and/or ignore
the rants and spews of idiots without actually silencing them.

These seem to be the solutions with the greatest potential for dealing
with the problem without introducing lots of other social
ramifications.

I, for my part, will read the moderated version, and watch the list of
rejects for things that Sandy's criteria for rejectable might be
different from mine. I expect these differences to be few and far
between, if they exist at all. If you prefer to read the list
completely without moderation, that is your prerogative, and the
proposed requirements for a moderated list (i.e., availability of an
unmoderated list) allows that. What isn't clear to me is why some seem
so interested in the (pointless) name-calling and opposition to the
availability of the list in moderated format.

- -- 
Matt Curtin  Chief Scientist  Megasoft, Inc.  cmcurtin@research.megasoft.com
http://www.research.megasoft.com/people/cmcurtin/    I speak only for myself
Hacker Security Firewall Crypto PGP Privacy Unix Perl Java Internet Intranet

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Have you encrypted your data today?

iQEVAwUBMtGwPH6R34u/f3zNAQHvIgf+NUc0+a/BXxuYdqBC7+3LLrur4tYB4EQE
ZJNmx++nMiHr6c3vIxlWxxK/i+jvJrOxsMl6Cn1kyALFOURpz3Bh8oJ8m8jsSaBQ
uc20CXhy8x4JWlK1UZBSRSlfSLLyq584Iav6DtTPnas2sFHP9JQUSPrNtj82ab71
O7Zct+GFZ7EuSdf8otRDx5Yo+wElNxCYOtZvLGTXEgEL8kaXdm7JtTKHLpujU5Kx
JpBqODyXiplt5+sy4F/0svFoH2pKFcDGKCsap0+er4t185yz6a1G/xkki+whrrG2
xJ9vAEc3HtDYZsE6PGQUdikOZXKXQeZ0qeGg7ffOxrmAagJB4Wscug==
=mfvS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

David Lesher / hated by RBOC's in 5 states wrote:
> Marc J. Wohler sez:
> > I have the utmost confidence  in Sandy and his efforts to revive the
> > quality of our list.
> Metoo....
> The alternative was to unsub.

I do not have confidence in Sandy, nor do I have preconceived confidence
in anyone else's abilities to be a good moderator. Moderators, like
governments, are potential dictators, and a lot of confidence makes them
only worse.

Moderation may or may not be a good idea, but it is important that 
readership keeps a close eye on their rulers.

	- Igor.

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

C'punks,

On Sun, 5 Jan 1997 ichudov@algebra.com wrote:

> Moderation may or may not be a good idea, but it is important that 
> readership keeps a close eye on their rulers.

I agree with Igor or this.  That's why nothing will be dropped,
only sorted.  I encourage Igor and anyone else who is concerned
to "check my work."


 S a n d y

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

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

David,

You wrote:

> Marc J. Wohler sez:
> > 
> > I have the utmost confidence  in Sandy and his efforts to revive the
> > quality of our list.
> 
> Metoo....
> 
> The alternative was to unsub.

Thanks, I try my best.


 S a n d y

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