Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list

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

C'punks,

On Mon, 27 Jan 1997 paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote:

> The list has been disentigrating for some time since the disgusting 
> incident when Dimitri was forcibly unsubscribed from the list. 

I'm curious about the gratuitous use of the word "forcibly" by
Paul.  Does this mean Gilmore took a fire axe to the computer or
something?  Dimitri was unsubscribed.  It was done more or less
against his will.  ("More or less" because he in effect said to
John, "bet you can't stop me.")  What does "forcibly" add to this
discussion besides melodrama?  No force was required.  John had
the right and ability to pull the plug on Dimitri.  "No animals
were harmed in the making of this film."  "Force," my ass.

> have also been a number of postings from members of the list claiming 
> to understand anarchism who support censorship to "protect new 
> members of the list".

There are various definitions of "censorship" and various flavors
of anarchism.  I'm a market anarchist, Paul is not.  Paul claims
to believe that any form of moderation is censorship.  I think
that enforcing standards of decorum on a private, voluntary list
are not censorship.  Reasonable minds may differ.  I acknowledge 
that Paul's interpretations are not without some justification.
(I just think they are incorrect in the instant case.)  Paul, on
the other hand, seems to be a True Believer.  He brooks no view
other than his own.  (Curiously hypocritical under the 
circumstrances.)
 
> So, there would be no intellectual dishonesty in a country claiming 
> to be a free and open society "trying out" fascism for a month or 
> two? - After all it`s a private country just as this is a private 
> list....

Paul's sophistry is showing.  Nation-states are entities that
exercise a monopoly on the use of force (real force, Paul)
within (and often without) their boundries.  Mail lists are far
more like private homes, businesses or clubs.  When you are a
guest there, you are subject to their rules of behavior.

> There is a clear trend easily observable on the list whereby certain 
> members postings are censored when their content is of a standard 
> that, if the moderation were objective and based on content alone, 
> would warrant their being sent to the censored list.

Several substantive examples, please.  True, nothing Bill Stewart
has posted has been sent to CP-Flames.  One guess why.  Numerous
posts by Dimitri have been posted to CP-Moderated, but many more
have not made the cut.  There are much more obvious reasons for
this than Paul's biased analysis.
 
> I can tell you one other thing for sure, even if the moderation 
> "experiment" were to end in a month as a last ditch attempt by John 
> Gilmore and Sandy Sandfort to recover some of their lost credibility 
> it would be a vain and entirely unsuccesful attempt.

YMMV.


 S a n d y

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

Get it straight Sandy Sandfort. I'm not in your home. I am in my home and I
will observe my priorities, not your's.

Sandy Sandfort writes:
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mail lists are far
>more like private homes, businesses or clubs.  When you are a
>guest there, you are subject to their rules of behavior.

If Dr. Vulis was pushing the envelope in list-abuse as a multi-stage social
experiment, Sandy Sandfort has surpassed him by far. In part I refer to a
Sandy Sandfort reply to a criticism made by Paul Bradley. The reply was
made public two hours before the criticism was. This is not moderation. It
is manipulation and interference. Since I have a low tolerance for
self-serving pedantry, I never would have noticed the criticism if it had
not been preceded by the reply.

In the reply, Sandy Sandfort employs the name-calling "sophist" and
"hypocrite." Also in the reply is the Freudian slip or obscene proposition:
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  "Force," my ass. 
Shouldn't this have gone to cypherpunks-flames?

One might wonder just what the rules of proper decorum are.

-- Richard Fiero

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

C'punks,

On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Richard Fiero wrote:

> Get it straight Sandy Sandfort. I'm not in your home. I am in
> my home and I will observe my priorities, not your's.

Silly things happen when one responds literally to an obvious 
metaphor.  (see, "analogy.")

> ...In part I refer to a
> Sandy Sandfort reply to a criticism made by Paul Bradley. The reply was
> made public two hours before the criticism was.

Nonsense.  Richard may have read my response on the Unedited list
and Paul post on the Moderated list, but I sent my response to
each list in the appropriate order, Paul's post, followed by my 
response.  In any event, how would intentionally reversing the 
order have benefited me?  This specious argument makes no sense.  

> In the reply, Sandy Sandfort employs the name-calling "sophist"
> and "hypocrite."

Nope, wrong again.  I referenced sophistry and hypocracy.  I 
leave the significance of the difference as an exercise to the
student.  (Hint: one is an argument to the man, the other isn't.)

> Also in the reply is the Freudian slip or obscene proposition:
> > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  "Force," my ass. 
> Shouldn't this have gone to cypherpunks-flames?

And wrong yet again.  Not a personal attack but commentary on 
wooly thinking.
 
> One might wonder just what the rules of proper decorum are.

One might read my posts on this point and pay attention.


 S a n d y

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