Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"

Sandy hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. Nemesis
submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous statements about
Sandy's employer.  He never anticipated that he wouldn't be able to
follow his announced "post it to one list or the other" policy because
to do so would make him legally liable (in his opinion; he's a lawyer,
I'm not).  His gears jammed, and the whole machine came to a halt for
a few days.

Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the
original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19).  And it's a good thing,
too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get off its
whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer exist.

I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to host the
cypherpunks list any more.  It's not the true assholes that brought me
to this decision; it's the reaction from the bulk of people on the
list: suspicion, flamage, and criticism with every attempt to improve
things.  I noticed few people volunteering some of their own time,
money, or machines to help out.  Almost all the suggestions were
advice for *other* people to implement:

                One would have thought that had Sandy and John really
    been interested in hearing the views of list members, this approach would
    have eventually won out.

    a supposedly libertarian and anarchistic group of people has decided
    that censorship is the right solution to their problems.

							I'd prefer
    for the cypherpunks _name_ not be associated with a moderated/censored
    list. (I mean no insult to either Sandy or John in this, BTW... I
    simply think that they've gone about this the wrong way.

    If one is going to advocate free speech, I strongly suggest one
    learns to deal with one's own greed and one's own need for power
    first.

    For those who want it, let someone moderate the list for as long as
    they care to do it. Approved messages get a "X-sandy-approved"
    header.

    ... the vast majority are still shipped out as 'Sender:
    owner-cypherpunks@toad.com' (and the 'Received' chain as I pointed
    out in my original post). to me that is piss poor list management.

        however you slice it, censorship on a freedom of speech list
    just does not make it and we make fools of ourselves if we think
    otherwise.

Now each of these posters will get their chance to do it "right" --
on their own time and with their own resources.

A large fraction of the list seems to think that "freedom of speech"
means that everyone is required to listen to everyone else at all
times.  That there can't be focused, topical conversations in a
society that has freedom of speech.  I would say the opposite; part of
freedom of speech is the freedom to choose to whom we speak and to
whom we listen.  This is part of what cryptography does: lets us
control who can receive our speech, and lets recievers determine who
the speaker is.

There also seems to be a misunderstanding that freedom of speech
requires that people who want to speak already have a place, set up
and maintained by someone else, for them to speak in.  If someone
who's set up a speech-place decides it isn't being used for its
intended purpose, then they are a censor, stopping all possibility of
conversations.  Did you forget that there are millions of other places
to speak in cyberspace, millions more in realspace, and that you can
personally create more if you don't like any of the ones you know about?
To paraphrase Zappa, you wouldn't know censorship if it bit you on the
ass.  You think you're being censored when you're just being excluded
from a forum because what you're saying isn't interesting to that forum.

So anyway, I'm tired of it all.  I'd much rather focus on getting my
crypto work done than babysitting majordomo, tracking down attempts to
subscribe the entire US Congress to the list, and debating the seventy
or eighty "obvious right ways" to handle the list.

This is a "put up or shut up" to the cypherpunks community.

Either you list denizens will, among yourselves, put in the energy to
build a new home for the list (and run it in whatever way your
volunteers want) by Feb 20, or the list will cease to exist on Feb 20.

The next ten days of moderated discussion, through the end of the
original experiment, will give the community a chance to discuss
whether and where it plans to host the list after the experiment is
over.  My feeling is that the stalkers who have been trying to shut it
down (Dimitri, etc) will be out in full force, trying to disrupt the
process of finding a new home.  It would be very hard to make progress
along that line in an unmoderated list.  Cypherpunks-unedited readers
are welcome to try.

Sandy reports that he's changing his criteria for moderation for the
remainder of the experiment.  It was his idea, and I approve.  The
criteria now are:

	*  The topics of the list are:
		cryptography
		setting up replacements for cypherpunks@toad.com
	*  On-topic, legal, posts will go to the list.
	*  Postings with any hint of legal liability (in Sandy's opinion)
	   will be silently ignored.
	*  Legal but off-topic posts will go to cypherpunks-flames.

Sandy will apply these criteria retroactively to the backlog (of about
140 messages), which means that most recent criticisms of the
moderation (which don't invove someone volunteering to do things for
the list) will go straight to the flames list.  If you don't like it,
I recommend that you start your own list.  Soon.

For me it's a sad thing that the community's willingness to pull
together has degenerated to the point where I feel better off
separating from the list.  I hope that others in the community will
create one or several alternatives that work better.

	John Gilmore

How do you encourage people to use resources more-or-less wisely?

1.  The socialist/nanny model - take charge and give 'em orders

We've tried that and it apparently didn't work out.

2.  The market model - charge people for what they use

A while back, omebody suggested a system which would be self-funding, by
charging people for each post they made.  Maybe we should try it?  If
each little piece of ASCII art cost a poster a buck or two to send, he
might send fewer.  On the other hand, we don't want to discourage
interesting posters, so I think some system to reimburse interesting
posters would be useful.

I'm not the guy to set up the system, but I'll happily buy a modest amount
of "posting tickets."

Brad



On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, John Gilmore wrote:

> Sandy hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. Nemesis
> submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous statements about
> Sandy's employer.  He never anticipated that he wouldn't be able to
> follow his announced "post it to one list or the other" policy because
> to do so would make him legally liable (in his opinion; he's a lawyer,
> I'm not).  His gears jammed, and the whole machine came to a halt for
> a few days.
> 
> Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the
> original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19).  And it's a good thing,
> too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get off its
> whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer exist.
> 
> I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to host the
> cypherpunks list any more.  It's not the true assholes that brought me
> to this decision; it's the reaction from the bulk of people on the
> list: suspicion, flamage, and criticism with every attempt to improve
> things.  I noticed few people volunteering some of their own time,
> money, or machines to help out.  Almost all the suggestions were
> advice for *other* people to implement:
> ...

Brad Dolan wrote:
> How do you encourage people to use resources more-or-less wisely?
> 1.  The socialist/nanny model - take charge and give 'em orders
> We've tried that and it apparently didn't work out.
> 2.  The market model - charge people for what they use
> A while back, omebody suggested a system which would be self-funding, by
> charging people for each post they made.  Maybe we should try it?  If
> each little piece of ASCII art cost a poster a buck or two to send, he
> might send fewer.  On the other hand, we don't want to discourage
> interesting posters, so I think some system to reimburse interesting
> posters would be useful.
> I'm not the guy to set up the system, but I'll happily buy a modest amount
> of "posting tickets."

When you're a spy, you usually pay for info.  In John's case, he's
been getting the info for free.  Now you're suggestion he charge
people for providing him the info.  This is not the direction John
wants to go.  He just wants cleaner info, that's all.

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

C'punks,

You have probably just read John's post.  I truly hope YOU (each
and every one of you) can rise to his challenge.  If you have 
offered nothing in the past but criticism, it's now time to get a
bit more real.  What will it be, your money, time, equipment?

I would hope that the loudest advocates of "free speech" turn out
to be the most generous, but I'm not holding my breath.  Maybe 
the solution(s) will come from you lurkers.  I hope you can put
down your beer long enough to get involved.

Finally, if anyone wants to discuss why the Cypherpunk list has
come to this, or what I did right or wrong as a moderator, let's
talk about--on the new list(s) YOU create.  For now, though, it's
off-topic.  We have work to do.


 S a n d y

P.S.	To all those people who privately supported me in
	my attempt to help the list deal with its problems,
	thank you.  I wouldn't have come back without your
	and John's encouragement.

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

Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> You have probably just read John's post.  I truly hope YOU (each
> and every one of you) can rise to his challenge.  If you have
> offered nothing in the past but criticism, it's now time to get a
> bit more real.  What will it be, your money, time, equipment?

What challenge?  An offer to break code for money?  Not likely,
is it?

> I would hope that the loudest advocates of "free speech" turn out
> to be the most generous, but I'm not holding my breath.  Maybe
> the solution(s) will come from you lurkers.  I hope you can put
> down your beer long enough to get involved.

Generous with what?  Get involved with crypto?  That's why they're
here in the first place, yes?

> Finally, if anyone wants to discuss why the Cypherpunk list has
> come to this, or what I did right or wrong as a moderator, let's
> talk about--on the new list(s) YOU create.  For now, though, it's
> off-topic.  We have work to do.

I think they already talked about it, and the decision is in.  What
does "off-topic" mean? Does it mean further criticism will be censored?

> P.S. To all those people who privately supported me in my attempt
>      to help the list deal with its problems, thank you.

Help the list?  You almost destroyed the list.  If you wanted to
help, you should have provided lessons on filtering.

> I wouldn't have come back without your and John's encouragement.

A lot of people wish you hadn't come back.

John Gilmore wrote:
> Sandy hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. Nemesis
> submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous statements about
> Sandy's employer.  He never anticipated that he wouldn't be able to
> follow his announced "post it to one list or the other" policy because
> to do so would make him legally liable (in his opinion; he's a lawyer,
> I'm not).  His gears jammed, and the whole machine came to a halt for
> a few days.

Naturally he hit a pothole.  Censorship has its price, and you
folks just discovered it.  But censors never give up, do they?
Especially when there are hidden agendas.

> Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the
> original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19).  And it's a good thing,
> too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get off its
> whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer exist.

John Gilmore is so disrespectful of the human beings on this list
that he whines and complains about their "attitudes", as though
he had a right to control them.  What a jerk.

> I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to host the
> cypherpunks list any more.  It's not the true assholes that brought me
> to this decision; it's the reaction from the bulk of people on the
> list: suspicion, flamage, and criticism with every attempt to improve
> things.  I noticed few people volunteering some of their own time,
> money, or machines to help out.  Almost all the suggestions were
> advice for *other* people to implement:

Not willing because of some additional burden?  No.  It's because you
were outed as a censor and a jerk, and you can't get back the respect
you previously had.  The sour grapes you're displaying here are worthy
of a little child, not an adult.

> Now each of these posters will get their chance to do it "right" --
> on their own time and with their own resources.

Read: I'm gonna take my bat and ball and go home...

> A large fraction of the list seems to think that "freedom of speech"
> means that everyone is required to listen to everyone else at all
> times.  That there can't be focused, topical conversations in a
> society that has freedom of speech.  I would say the opposite; part of
> freedom of speech is the freedom to choose to whom we speak and to
> whom we listen.  This is part of what cryptography does: lets us
> control who can receive our speech, and lets recievers determine who
> the speaker is.

Everything was fine until you decided to screw it up.  Then your
emotional, denying little brain trys to blame it on everyone else.

> There also seems to be a misunderstanding that freedom of speech
> requires that people who want to speak already have a place, set up
> and maintained by someone else, for them to speak in.

There are places to speak, and people try to speak in those places.
When they are cut off, then they complain.  Nobody complained before
you had an open forum that you weren't providing same.  That's your
denial kicking up, not mine.

> If someone
> who's set up a speech-place decides it isn't being used for its
> intended purpose, then they are a censor, stopping all possibility of
> conversations.  Did you forget that there are millions of other places
> to speak in cyberspace, millions more in realspace, and that you can
> personally create more if you don't like any of the ones you know about?

Intended purpose?  Did you really believe that setting up an open
forum gave you the right (or any option) to control the content?
Are you so immature that you can't handle complaints?

> To paraphrase Zappa, you wouldn't know censorship if it bit you on the
> ass.  You think you're being censored when you're just being excluded
> from a forum because what you're saying isn't interesting to that forum.

I know a lot of things, especially after they've bit be in the ass.
Especially about censors and CIA-related trolls like yourself, who
set up forums to collect info on unsuspecting American citizens.
Made any "yeti" expeditions lately?

> So anyway, I'm tired of it all.  I'd much rather focus on getting my
> crypto work done than babysitting majordomo, tracking down attempts to
> subscribe the entire US Congress to the list, and debating the seventy
> or eighty "obvious right ways" to handle the list.

Read: I need to find a new troll that's not being sabotaged by
alert citizens.

> This is a "put up or shut up" to the cypherpunks community.
> Either you list denizens will, among yourselves, put in the energy to
> build a new home for the list (and run it in whatever way your
> volunteers want) by Feb 20, or the list will cease to exist on Feb 20.

Jeez, do you have an ego or what?  Who died and made you the king?
Your only claim to fame is your equipment that's hosting the list.
Your reputation is in the toilet.  You're nobody.  In fact, you're
less than nobody.  Your best bet would be to crawl into a hole and
pull the dirt in over you.

> The next ten days of moderated discussion, through the end of the
> original experiment, will give the community a chance to discuss
> whether and where it plans to host the list after the experiment is
> over.  My feeling is that the stalkers who have been trying to shut it
> down (Dimitri, etc) will be out in full force, trying to disrupt the
> process of finding a new home.  It would be very hard to make progress
> along that line in an unmoderated list.  Cypherpunks-unedited readers
> are welcome to try.

Yet another accusation that Dimitri's purpose is to "shut it down".
The very fact that it's you who have the com puts the lie to that.

> Sandy reports that he's changing his criteria for moderation for the
> remainder of the experiment.  It was his idea, and I approve.  The
> criteria now are:

Another experiment run by the same incompetent bozo who screwed up
the first experiment.  Don't you clowns ever get it?  You do, but
then again, you have a hidden agenda.

>         *  The topics of the list are:
>                 cryptography
>                 setting up replacements for cypherpunks@toad.com
>         *  On-topic, legal, posts will go to the list.
>         *  Postings with any hint of legal liability (in Sandy's opinion)
>            will be silently ignored.
>         *  Legal but off-topic posts will go to cypherpunks-flames.
> 
> Sandy will apply these criteria retroactively to the backlog (of about
> 140 messages), which means that most recent criticisms of the
> moderation (which don't invove someone volunteering to do things for
> the list) will go straight to the flames list.  If you don't like it,
> I recommend that you start your own list.  Soon.
> 
> For me it's a sad thing that the community's willingness to pull
> together has degenerated to the point where I feel better off
> separating from the list.  I hope that others in the community will
> create one or several alternatives that work better.

So you think you've fulfilled your obligation?  There's only one
thing that will ever save you.  Get down on your knees and confess,
saying to God and the list subscribers what a pathetic sinner you
are, and beg for their forgiveness.  Then get to work for the people,
and give up trolling for the feds.

Dale, can you set up a mailing list server that will participate in the
distributed listserv network?

thank you

igor

Dale Thorn wrote:
> 
> John Gilmore wrote:
> > Sandy hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. Nemesis
> > submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous statements about
> > Sandy's employer.  He never anticipated that he wouldn't be able to
> > follow his announced "post it to one list or the other" policy because
> > to do so would make him legally liable (in his opinion; he's a lawyer,
> > I'm not).  His gears jammed, and the whole machine came to a halt for
> > a few days.
> 
> Naturally he hit a pothole.  Censorship has its price, and you
> folks just discovered it.  But censors never give up, do they?
> Especially when there are hidden agendas.
> 
> > Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the
> > original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19).  And it's a good thing,
> > too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get off its
> > whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer exist.
> 
> John Gilmore is so disrespectful of the human beings on this list
> that he whines and complains about their "attitudes", as though
> he had a right to control them.  What a jerk.
> 
> > I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to host the
> > cypherpunks list any more.  It's not the true assholes that brought me
> > to this decision; it's the reaction from the bulk of people on the
> > list: suspicion, flamage, and criticism with every attempt to improve
> > things.  I noticed few people volunteering some of their own time,
> > money, or machines to help out.  Almost all the suggestions were
> > advice for *other* people to implement:
> 
> Not willing because of some additional burden?  No.  It's because you
> were outed as a censor and a jerk, and you can't get back the respect
> you previously had.  The sour grapes you're displaying here are worthy
> of a little child, not an adult.
> 
> > Now each of these posters will get their chance to do it "right" --
> > on their own time and with their own resources.
> 
> Read: I'm gonna take my bat and ball and go home...
> 
> > A large fraction of the list seems to think that "freedom of speech"
> > means that everyone is required to listen to everyone else at all
> > times.  That there can't be focused, topical conversations in a
> > society that has freedom of speech.  I would say the opposite; part of
> > freedom of speech is the freedom to choose to whom we speak and to
> > whom we listen.  This is part of what cryptography does: lets us
> > control who can receive our speech, and lets recievers determine who
> > the speaker is.
> 
> Everything was fine until you decided to screw it up.  Then your
> emotional, denying little brain trys to blame it on everyone else.
> 
> > There also seems to be a misunderstanding that freedom of speech
> > requires that people who want to speak already have a place, set up
> > and maintained by someone else, for them to speak in.
> 
> There are places to speak, and people try to speak in those places.
> When they are cut off, then they complain.  Nobody complained before
> you had an open forum that you weren't providing same.  That's your
> denial kicking up, not mine.
> 
> > If someone
> > who's set up a speech-place decides it isn't being used for its
> > intended purpose, then they are a censor, stopping all possibility of
> > conversations.  Did you forget that there are millions of other places
> > to speak in cyberspace, millions more in realspace, and that you can
> > personally create more if you don't like any of the ones you know about?
> 
> Intended purpose?  Did you really believe that setting up an open
> forum gave you the right (or any option) to control the content?
> Are you so immature that you can't handle complaints?
> 
> > To paraphrase Zappa, you wouldn't know censorship if it bit you on the
> > ass.  You think you're being censored when you're just being excluded
> > from a forum because what you're saying isn't interesting to that forum.
> 
> I know a lot of things, especially after they've bit be in the ass.
> Especially about censors and CIA-related trolls like yourself, who
> set up forums to collect info on unsuspecting American citizens.
> Made any "yeti" expeditions lately?
> 
> > So anyway, I'm tired of it all.  I'd much rather focus on getting my
> > crypto work done than babysitting majordomo, tracking down attempts to
> > subscribe the entire US Congress to the list, and debating the seventy
> > or eighty "obvious right ways" to handle the list.
> 
> Read: I need to find a new troll that's not being sabotaged by
> alert citizens.
> 
> > This is a "put up or shut up" to the cypherpunks community.
> > Either you list denizens will, among yourselves, put in the energy to
> > build a new home for the list (and run it in whatever way your
> > volunteers want) by Feb 20, or the list will cease to exist on Feb 20.
> 
> Jeez, do you have an ego or what?  Who died and made you the king?
> Your only claim to fame is your equipment that's hosting the list.
> Your reputation is in the toilet.  You're nobody.  In fact, you're
> less than nobody.  Your best bet would be to crawl into a hole and
> pull the dirt in over you.
> 
> > The next ten days of moderated discussion, through the end of the
> > original experiment, will give the community a chance to discuss
> > whether and where it plans to host the list after the experiment is
> > over.  My feeling is that the stalkers who have been trying to shut it
> > down (Dimitri, etc) will be out in full force, trying to disrupt the
> > process of finding a new home.  It would be very hard to make progress
> > along that line in an unmoderated list.  Cypherpunks-unedited readers
> > are welcome to try.
> 
> Yet another accusation that Dimitri's purpose is to "shut it down".
> The very fact that it's you who have the com puts the lie to that.
> 
> > Sandy reports that he's changing his criteria for moderation for the
> > remainder of the experiment.  It was his idea, and I approve.  The
> > criteria now are:
> 
> Another experiment run by the same incompetent bozo who screwed up
> the first experiment.  Don't you clowns ever get it?  You do, but
> then again, you have a hidden agenda.
> 
> >         *  The topics of the list are:
> >                 cryptography
> >                 setting up replacements for cypherpunks@toad.com
> >         *  On-topic, legal, posts will go to the list.
> >         *  Postings with any hint of legal liability (in Sandy's opinion)
> >            will be silently ignored.
> >         *  Legal but off-topic posts will go to cypherpunks-flames.
> > 
> > Sandy will apply these criteria retroactively to the backlog (of about
> > 140 messages), which means that most recent criticisms of the
> > moderation (which don't invove someone volunteering to do things for
> > the list) will go straight to the flames list.  If you don't like it,
> > I recommend that you start your own list.  Soon.
> > 
> > For me it's a sad thing that the community's willingness to pull
> > together has degenerated to the point where I feel better off
> > separating from the list.  I hope that others in the community will
> > create one or several alternatives that work better.
> 
> So you think you've fulfilled your obligation?  There's only one
> thing that will ever save you.  Get down on your knees and confess,
> saying to God and the list subscribers what a pathetic sinner you
> are, and beg for their forgiveness.  Then get to work for the people,
> and give up trolling for the feds.
> 



	- Igor.

On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:

> John Gilmore wrote:
> > Sandy hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. Nemesis
> > submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous statements about
> > Sandy's employer.  He never anticipated that he wouldn't be able to
> > follow his announced "post it to one list or the other" policy because
> > to do so would make him legally liable (in his opinion; he's a lawyer,
> > I'm not).  

That was just -bullshit-  There is no legal liability whatsoever
to the moderating of any mailing list.  All Sandy did was make an
excuse to be a censor.

> > His gears jammed, and the whole machine came to a halt for
> > a few days.
> 

The whole machine is broken, so throw it away.

> Naturally he hit a pothole.  Censorship has its price, and you
> folks just discovered it.  But censors never give up, do they?
> Especially when there are hidden agendas.
> 
> > Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the
> > original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19).  And it's a good thing,
> > too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get off its
> > whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer exist.
> 
> John Gilmore is so disrespectful of the human beings on this list
> that he whines and complains about their "attitudes", as though
> he had a right to control them.  What a jerk.
> 

Yes, and just why is Gilmore such a jerk?  Could his homosexuality
have anything to do with it?

> > I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to host the
> > cypherpunks list any more.  

Good.  You are a bad example of todays modern CyberNaut Netizen, and 
queers like you should go away, so we can clean up this InterNet and
make it a good place for straight people.

> > It's not the true assholes that brought me
> > to this decision; it's the reaction from the bulk of people on the
> > list: suspicion, flamage, and criticism with every attempt to improve
> > things.  I noticed few people volunteering some of their own time,
> > money, or machines to help out.  Almost all the suggestions were
> > advice for *other* people to implement:
> 

Maybe they just wanted you to leave, Gilmore.  After all, your EFF has
ruined the reputation of the InterNet, and your homosexuality is a bad
sign.  Homos should not be allowed to have any authority positions
anyplace on the net.

> Not willing because of some additional burden?  No.  It's because you
> were outed as a censor and a jerk, and you can't get back the respect
> you previously had.  The sour grapes you're displaying here are worthy
> of a little child, not an adult.
> 
> > Now each of these posters will get their chance to do it "right" --
> > on their own time and with their own resources.
> 
> Read: I'm gonna take my bat and ball and go home...
> 

Let us hope that the whole EFF goes down the drain with him.

> > A large fraction of the list seems to think that "freedom of speech"
> > means that everyone is required to listen to everyone else at all
> > times.  That there can't be focused, topical conversations in a
> > society that has freedom of speech.  I would say the opposite; part of
> > freedom of speech is the freedom to choose to whom we speak and to
> > whom we listen.  This is part of what cryptography does: lets us
> > control who can receive our speech, and lets recievers determine who
> > the speaker is.
> 
> Everything was fine until you decided to screw it up.  Then your
> emotional, denying little brain trys to blame it on everyone else.
> 

Another common sign of a homosexual personality.

> > There also seems to be a misunderstanding that freedom of speech
> > requires that people who want to speak already have a place, set up
> > and maintained by someone else, for them to speak in.
> 
> There are places to speak, and people try to speak in those places.
> When they are cut off, then they complain.  Nobody complained before
> you had an open forum that you weren't providing same.  That's your
> denial kicking up, not mine.
> 
> > If someone
> > who's set up a speech-place decides it isn't being used for its
> > intended purpose, then they are a censor, stopping all possibility of
> > conversations.  Did you forget that there are millions of other places
> > to speak in cyberspace, millions more in realspace, and that you can
> > personally create more if you don't like any of the ones you know about?
> 

This all goes to usenet as mail.cypherpunks, you know.

> Intended purpose?  Did you really believe that setting up an open
> forum gave you the right (or any option) to control the content?
> Are you so immature that you can't handle complaints?
> 
> > To paraphrase Zappa, you wouldn't know censorship if it bit you on the
> > ass.  You think you're being censored when you're just being excluded
> > from a forum because what you're saying isn't interesting to that forum.
> 

Zappa is irrelevant here.  And stop trying to sell censorship as
whatever is "interesting" to that forum.  

> I know a lot of things, especially after they've bit be in the ass.
> Especially about censors and CIA-related trolls like yourself, who
> set up forums to collect info on unsuspecting American citizens.
> Made any "yeti" expeditions lately?
> 
> > So anyway, I'm tired of it all.  I'd much rather focus on getting my
> > crypto work done than babysitting majordomo, tracking down attempts to
> > subscribe the entire US Congress to the list, and debating the seventy
> > or eighty "obvious right ways" to handle the list.
> 
> Read: I need to find a new troll that's not being sabotaged by
> alert citizens.
> 
> > This is a "put up or shut up" to the cypherpunks community.
> > Either you list denizens will, among yourselves, put in the energy to
> > build a new home for the list (and run it in whatever way your
> > volunteers want) by Feb 20, or the list will cease to exist on Feb 20.
> 

You can start any new list you want at cypherpunks@pgh.org

They will provide a free address and majordomo location.
And the mail.cypherpunks newsgroup shall suffice for now.

You leaving is no big thing, dude.

> Jeez, do you have an ego or what?  Who died and made you the king?
> Your only claim to fame is your equipment that's hosting the list.
> Your reputation is in the toilet.  You're nobody.  In fact, you're
> less than nobody.  Your best bet would be to crawl into a hole and
> pull the dirt in over you.
> 
> > The next ten days of moderated discussion, through the end of the
> > original experiment, will give the community a chance to discuss
> > whether and where it plans to host the list after the experiment is
> > over.  My feeling is that the stalkers who have been trying to shut it
> > down (Dimitri, etc) will be out in full force, trying to disrupt the
> > process of finding a new home.  It would be very hard to make progress
> > along that line in an unmoderated list.  Cypherpunks-unedited readers
> > are welcome to try.
> 
No, I will fix up a new address where Dimitri or anyone can run the
majordomo for free, if he wants.

> Yet another accusation that Dimitri's purpose is to "shut it down".
> The very fact that it's you who have the com puts the lie to that.
> 
> > Sandy reports that he's changing his criteria for moderation for the
> > remainder of the experiment.  It was his idea, and I approve.  The
> > criteria now are:
> 
> Another experiment run by the same incompetent bozo who screwed up
> the first experiment.  Don't you clowns ever get it?  You do, but
> then again, you have a hidden agenda.
> 
> >         *  The topics of the list are:
> >                 cryptography
> >                 setting up replacements for cypherpunks@toad.com
> >         *  On-topic, legal, posts will go to the list.

Now just WHAT the fuck do you think is "illegal?"

> >         *  Postings with any hint of legal liability (in Sandy's opinion)
> >            will be silently ignored.

Sandy is not a very smart Lawyer, and he is only using that as an
excuse to censor.

> >         *  Legal but off-topic posts will go to cypherpunks-flames.
> > 
> > Sandy will apply these criteria retroactively to the backlog (of about
> > 140 messages), which means that most recent criticisms of the
> > moderation (which don't invove someone volunteering to do things for
> > the list) will go straight to the flames list.  If you don't like it,
> > I recommend that you start your own list.  Soon.
> > 
> > For me it's a sad thing that the community's willingness to pull
> > together has degenerated to the point where I feel better off
> > separating from the list.  I hope that others in the community will
> > create one or several alternatives that work better.
> 

Face it John Gilmore, you are a known queer and queers are not
allowed to have any authority positions any more, because they
are the ones who have aggregated and ruined the InterNet so far.
Queers are too unstable and untrustworthy, as has been shown again in
this instance.

> So you think you've fulfilled your obligation?  There's only one
> thing that will ever save you.  Get down on your knees and confess,
> saying to God and the list subscribers what a pathetic sinner you
> are, and beg for their forgiveness.  Then get to work for the people,
> and give up trolling for the feds.
> 

Just get rid of John Golmore, and that will be the first step in the
right direction.  The entire EFF is a BAD agency and it gives a bad
reputation to the rest of us good Organizations.

aga administrator
InterNet Freedom Council
ifc@pgh.org

aga wrote:
> 
> That was just -bullshit-  There is no legal liability whatsoever
> to the moderating of any mailing list.  All Sandy did was make an
> excuse to be a censor.

  I hate censors Dr. Grubor.  Dave says hate is a destructive 
emotion but when properly channeled it can be quite valuable.
 
>> > His gears jammed, and the whole machine came to a halt for
>> > a few days.
>>
> 
> The whole machine is broken, so throw it away.
> 
>> Naturally he hit a pothole.  Censorship has its price, and you
>> folks just discovered it.  But censors never give up, do they?
>> Especially when there are hidden agendas.

  And they all have hidden agenda's--you've just seen this one
is all as it was so blatant.


>> John Gilmore is so disrespectful of the human beings on this list
>> that he whines and complains about their "attitudes", as though
> > he had a right to control them.  What a jerk.
> 
> Yes, and just why is Gilmore such a jerk?  Could his homosexuality
> have anything to do with it?
> 

  I doubt his sexual preference has anything to do with anything
nor is it relevant.  Gilmore is just a censorous asshole--the
reasons for him being that way are rather irrelevant.


> Maybe they just wanted you to leave, Gilmore.  After all, your EFF has

  The EFF is a disgrace--they represent the interests of owners not
users--their money comes from large corporate sources and they
are nothing more than corporate whores as the ACLU has made clear.


> Just get rid of John Golmore, and that will be the first step in the
> right direction.  The entire EFF is a BAD agency and it gives a bad
> reputation to the rest of us good Organizations.

  Gilmore has no ethics--he's owned and operated by corporate
interests.

                           Steve


> 
> aga administrator
> InterNet Freedom Council
> ifc@pgh.org

aga <aga@dhp.com> writes:

> Yes, and just why is Gilmore such a jerk?  Could his homosexuality
> have anything to do with it?

Doubtful.  Given the fact that gay people suffer a great deal of
discrimination, they generally tend to be fairly open-minded.  I see
no reason to believe Gilmore is in fact gay, but if he is it in no way
affects my opinion of him.

> Maybe they just wanted you to leave, Gilmore.  After all, your EFF has
> ruined the reputation of the InterNet, and your homosexuality is a bad
> sign.  Homos should not be allowed to have any authority positions
> anyplace on the net.

Your bigotry seriously undermines the effectiveness of any
anti-censorship arguments you make.  Are you just trying to get
everyone to hate those who oppose censorship on cypherpunks.  Which
side are you on anyway?

On 12 Feb 1997, Against Moderation wrote:

> Date: 12 Feb 1997 16:51:37 -0000
> From: Against Moderation <antimod@nym.alias.net>
> To: aga <aga@dhp.com>
> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com, cypherpunks@pgh.org,
>     InterNet Freedom Council <ifc@pgh.org>, ichudov@algebra.com,
>     dlv@bwalk.dm.com, Freedom Knights <freedom-knights@jetcafe.org>
> Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
> 
> aga <aga@dhp.com> writes:
> 
> > Yes, and just why is Gilmore such a jerk?  Could his homosexuality
> > have anything to do with it?
> 
> Doubtful.  Given the fact that gay people suffer a great deal of
> discrimination, they generally tend to be fairly open-minded.  I see
> no reason to believe Gilmore is in fact gay, but if he is it in no way
> affects my opinion of him.
> 

Well, the fact remains that the homos are instrumental in creating and
forming a cliquish and censored usenet.  There is just no question
about that.  Remember the previous cypherpunk who stated that the
gays "created and run usenet."

> > Maybe they just wanted you to leave, Gilmore.  After all, your EFF has
> > ruined the reputation of the InterNet, and your homosexuality is a bad
> > sign.  Homos should not be allowed to have any authority positions
> > anyplace on the net.
> 
> Your bigotry seriously undermines the effectiveness of any
> anti-censorship arguments you make.  

Your assumption that I am a "bigot" makes it you appear uninformed.
Sexism is good, but racism is bad.   A sexist is not a bigot.

The only one who qualifies as a "bigot" is a racist.

> Are you just trying to get
> everyone to hate those who oppose censorship on cypherpunks.  Which
> side are you on anyway?
> 

It is very logical and wise to discriminate on the basis of sex.

I am not a racist, so therefore I can not be a "bigot," regardless of
my views on homosexuality.

aga wrote:
> On 12 Feb 1997, Against Moderation wrote:
> > aga <aga@dhp.com> writes:
> > > Yes, and just why is Gilmore such a jerk?  Could his homosexuality
> > > have anything to do with it?

> > Doubtful.  Given the fact that gay people suffer a great deal of
> > discrimination, they generally tend to be fairly open-minded.  I see
> > no reason to believe Gilmore is in fact gay, but if he is it in no way
> > affects my opinion of him.

(It sure doesn't affect my opinion of him.  He's such a total jerk
and a conspiring creep that I haven't had to consider anything else).

Funny, isn't it?  Those people who *allegedly* suffer the most dis-
crimination seem to be having the most fun, if you can call it that.
If I were gay, which I'm not, I could get all the boyfriends I want.
But being heterosexual, I would very much like to have women friends
(just as friends mind you) for ordinary social purposes, yet it's not
that easy.  I'd guess the gays are much more liberal with their multi-
friendships than straight people are.

Another funny thing - I'm an ordinary English/Welsh/Dutch White person,
and I've had plenty of White friends, and an equal percentage of Black
friends given the number of Black people I've known, but I've never
had a friend who was gay or lesbian, as far as I know, and I think
I could tell.  I can only guess that the gays are very clique-ish,
or their brains are wired differently than non-gays.

> Well, the fact remains that the homos are instrumental in creating and
> forming a cliquish and censored usenet.  There is just no question
> about that.  Remember the previous cypherpunk who stated that the
> gays "created and run usenet."
[snip]
> It is very logical and wise to discriminate on the basis of sex.
> I am not a racist, so therefore I can not be a "bigot," regardless of
> my views on homosexuality.

an astute comment here below.

On Thu, 13 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:

> aga wrote:
> > On 12 Feb 1997, Against Moderation wrote:
> > > aga <aga@dhp.com> writes:
> > > > Yes, and just why is Gilmore such a jerk?  Could his homosexuality
> > > > have anything to do with it?
> 
> > > Doubtful.  Given the fact that gay people suffer a great deal of
> > > discrimination, they generally tend to be fairly open-minded.  I see
> > > no reason to believe Gilmore is in fact gay, but if he is it in no way
> > > affects my opinion of him.
> 
> (It sure doesn't affect my opinion of him.  He's such a total jerk
> and a conspiring creep that I haven't had to consider anything else).
> 
> Funny, isn't it?  Those people who *allegedly* suffer the most dis-
> crimination seem to be having the most fun, if you can call it that.
> If I were gay, which I'm not, I could get all the boyfriends I want.
> But being heterosexual, I would very much like to have women friends
> (just as friends mind you) for ordinary social purposes, yet it's not
> that easy.  I'd guess the gays are much more liberal with their multi-
> friendships than straight people are.
> 
> Another funny thing - I'm an ordinary English/Welsh/Dutch White person,
> and I've had plenty of White friends, and an equal percentage of Black
> friends given the number of Black people I've known, but I've never
> had a friend who was gay or lesbian, as far as I know, and I think
> I could tell.  I can only guess that the gays are very clique-ish,
> or their brains are wired differently than non-gays.
> 

That is it in a nutshell.
faggots are just not built like straight people.

> > Well, the fact remains that the homos are instrumental in creating and
> > forming a cliquish and censored usenet.  There is just no question
> > about that.  Remember the previous cypherpunk who stated that the
> > gays "created and run usenet."

and they were serious about that fact.

J.D. Falk was one of the faggots that said that, too.

> > It is very logical and wise to discriminate on the basis of sex.
> > I am not a racist, so therefore I can not be a "bigot," regardless of
> > my views on homosexuality.
>