Re: David E. Smith / Known Flamer

Toto wrote:
> David E. Smith wrote:
> > My understanding was that the moderator is supposed to ONLY
> > filter out ads and utterly-content-free messages.

>   That seems to be a very common misunderstanding--one which will
> remain without question on the censored list, since they have
> chosen to remain behind the ElectroMagnetic Curtain.

You'll recall that Sandfort (as Logos) ranted without letup about
decorum, decorum, ... ad nauseam, which, now that I look back on
it, is a *very* handy tool for controlling the list.  Logic does
not interfere with decorum, despite the implication of the nym
Logos.

> >  (Mind you, I took the smart out and subbed to cp-unedited,
> > so I'm in no place to judge.)

>   You're in a far better place to judge than those who have
> chosen to remain spoon-fed their world-view.

I just hope your judgement isn't skewed when you don't get some of
the mail, i.e., when the pony breaks down and can't run for awhile.

> > Aha, a good point to be brought up: Sandy, are you autofiltering
> > anyone based on user name, or on certain keywords? Seems to
> > defeat the purpose of having a _human_ moderator.

>   You realize, of course, that your question is moot, since this
> post of yours was already thrown in the crapper/flame-list.
>   It seems that questioning the process is a 'flame'.

The List Lord made it clear "In The Beginning" that some posts would
probably be irretrievably lost due to unavoidable "mistakes".
Think "FBI Crime Lab".  You get the picture.

Dale Thorn wrote:
> 
> The List Lord made it clear "In The Beginning" that some posts would
> probably be irretrievably lost due to unavoidable "mistakes".
> Think "FBI Crime Lab".  You get the picture.
> 

Remember, Dale, posts really do get lost due to unavoidable
mistakes.

Shit happens, and it certainly happens with all moderators whom I know.

	- Igor.

Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> Dale Thorn wrote:
> > The List Lord made it clear "In The Beginning" that some posts would
> > probably be irretrievably lost due to unavoidable "mistakes".
> > Think "FBI Crime Lab".  You get the picture.

> Remember, Dale, posts really do get lost due to unavoidable mistakes.
> Shit happens, and it certainly happens with all moderators whom I know.

I was *not* speaking of posts headed for the "moderated" list, I was
speaking of posts headed for the un-"moderated" list that would get
lost due to "mistakes".

Now I can understand how a censor could flub something going to a
moderated list, but why the un-moderated list?

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

C'punks,

On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:

> I was *not* speaking of posts headed for the "moderated" list, I was
> speaking of posts headed for the un-"moderated" list that would get
> lost due to "mistakes".
> 
> Now I can understand how a censor could flub something going to a
> moderated list, but why the un-moderated list?

Apparently, Dale does not understand the how the list is 
moderated.  When someone posts to Cypherpunks, it automatically
goes to the unedited list.  I am subscribed to the unedited list.
When I read the unedited list, I forward each message I see there
to either the flames list or the moderated list.  I have no 
control over the unedited list.  It goes out to everyone else at
the same time it goes out to me.  I don't have a clue as to what
Dale is talking about.


 S a n d y

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

Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com> writes:

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>                           SANDY SANDFORT
>  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
> C'punks,
>
> On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:
>
> > I was *not* speaking of posts headed for the "moderated" list, I was
> > speaking of posts headed for the un-"moderated" list that would get
> > lost due to "mistakes".
> >
> > Now I can understand how a censor could flub something going to a
> > moderated list, but why the un-moderated list?
>
> Apparently, Dale does not understand the how the list is
> moderated.  When someone posts to Cypherpunks, it automatically
> goes to the unedited list.  I am subscribed to the unedited list.
> When I read the unedited list, I forward each message I see there
> to either the flames list or the moderated list.  I have no
> control over the unedited list.  It goes out to everyone else at
> the same time it goes out to me.  I don't have a clue as to what
> Dale is talking about.

Dale is talking about the two messages from me that appeared on
the unedited list but did not appear on either censored or "flames"
list because Sandy chose not to forward them to either list.

Both messages dealt were criticial of Sandy's employer, C2, and
exposed their main product, Stronghold, as a fraud.

Other messages may have "fallen between the cracks" in the past,
but this was a controlled experiment.

---

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

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

On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:

> Both messages dealt were criticial of Sandy's employer, C2, and
> exposed their main product, Stronghold, as a fraud.

I assume that since you're making this claim about Stronghold, you
have facts to back it up?

|\/|ike Gurski  mgursk1@umbc.edu  http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~mgursk1/
finger/mail subject "send pgpkey"|"send index"  Hail Eris! -><-  O- |Member,
1024/39B5BADD PGP Keyprint=3493 A994 B159 48B7 1757 1E4E 6256 4570  |   Team
My opinions are mine alone, even if you should be sharing them.     |   OS/2
	    Senate Finance Committee Chair, SGA 1996-1997

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: I am not a number, I am a free man!

iQCVAwUBMvN5YyKEMrE5tbrdAQHAPAP/fPLrPXcWySUn9y/fYJcAMtdJlQF8AH9p
VEzlBMGM3qMEZcWW6no3TBN09MQgRH0xO7xHkHv/qaCZWxWYZYuJzvPXiCMChH3u
L1sBMUqn7OZK5afLDjer2CvNd/dH1nAtUIfl6tEcePMrbi4e61uJ/Y70Q9JlZeoz
AwDWPLw88gc=
=zhfk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > I was *not* speaking of posts headed for the "moderated" list, I was
> > speaking of posts headed for the un-"moderated" list that would get
> > lost due to "mistakes".
> > Now I can understand how a censor could flub something going to a
> > moderated list, but why the un-moderated list?

> Apparently, Dale does not understand the how the list is
> moderated.  When someone posts to Cypherpunks, it automatically
> goes to the unedited list.  I am subscribed to the unedited list.
> When I read the unedited list, I forward each message I see there
> to either the flames list or the moderated list.  I have no
> control over the unedited list.  It goes out to everyone else at
> the same time it goes out to me.  I don't have a clue as to what
> Dale is talking about.

I only said what I said in response to what Igor said.  I didn't make
an accusation myself, since I don't have the necessary info.

Igor Chudov @ home wrote:

> Shit happens, and it certainly happens with all moderators whom I know.

Igor,
 I got private email from someone who has read most of your posts, and
expressed confusion over 'whose side' you are 'on' in relation to the
censored debate in regard to list censorship.
 I had to laugh, because the sad truth is, there are all too many people
who seem unable to understand the concept of someone who is quite simply
on the 'side' of 'truth', as much as humanly possible.
 I explained to him that you weren't 'fence hopping', but merely sitting
on your own fence, observing, while everyone else runs around in
circles.
 Please stay 'confusing'.

Toto

right, in this particular case i am not on anyone's side.

i think that both sides of the debate do not know what they are doing,
but are very adept at creating paranoid theories about the other side.

igor

Toto wrote:
> 
> Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> 
> > Shit happens, and it certainly happens with all moderators whom I know.
> 
> Igor,
>  I got private email from someone who has read most of your posts, and
> expressed confusion over 'whose side' you are 'on' in relation to the
> censored debate in regard to list censorship.
>  I had to laugh, because the sad truth is, there are all too many people
> who seem unable to understand the concept of someone who is quite simply
> on the 'side' of 'truth', as much as humanly possible.
>  I explained to him that you weren't 'fence hopping', but merely sitting
> on your own fence, observing, while everyone else runs around in
> circles.
>  Please stay 'confusing'.
> 
> Toto
> 



	- Igor.