My messages not appearing on either of the lists?

Cypherpunks,

My posting seem to be going into Limbo, being sent neither to the
Cypherpunks Heaven Sandy administers nor to the flames of the Cypherpunks
Hell. At least this is how things now appear.

I sent the message below to the list this morning (Thursday) at 8:43 a.m.
PST. As of tonight, 12 hours later, I haven't seen it on either the
Singapore Web site--last archived 30 minutes ago--or on the "Flames" list
to which I have temporarily subscribed (to see what Sandy counts as a
"flame").

Has anyone else seen it? I've looked, but there's always a chance I somehow
spaced out and missed it. (I doubt it though.) If I have missed it, despite
carefully scanning for it for the past 8-12 hours, my apologies. If it has
not appeared on either the Censored list or the Flames list, then something
is rotten in the state of Denmark.

By the way, I noted that many of the messages which appeared at the
Singapore Web archive site have dates much later than mine, including
several dated at least 8-10 hours after my message. Likewise, some of the
Flames messages are dated much later than my message.

(Bill Stewart got a message through dated Thu, 06 Feb 1997 16:06:06 -0800,
Mark Henderson got one through at Thu, 6 Feb 1997 15:56:19 PST, and so on.
One would thus have thought that my message, dated Thu, 6 Feb 1997 08:43:35
-0800, would by now either have been approved and hence on the Censored
list, or rejected as unfit for Cypherpunks to sully their neurons with, and
hence passed on to the Flames list. By the way, some of the "Flames"
messages are also dated late afternoon or evening.)

So, is my message just sitting around someplace, awaiting some final
decision? What's the basis of this decision? (Perhaps Sandy has "kicked it
upstairs" to John for him to decide on? Just a hypothesis....)

I will repeat my message below. As you will be able to see, my message
contains no "flames" of its own, and the messages it quotes do not seem
flamish to me, either.

(It is true that Vulis uses the phrase "Limey faggots," in reference to
beer-serving habits, but he does not directly insult any list members with
this phrase. If Sandy is calling this phrase a flame, then Cypherpunks will
be blocked from their usual characterizations of Congresscritters and NSA
stooges.)


I think a delay of greater than 11 hours in being distributed on one of the
two lists (even if my message is sent out in the next hour or so) is
unacceptable. If a moderator cannot get to traffic in the order in which it
was received and disposition it promptly, he or she has no business being a
moderator of a high-volume list. (Eric Blossom's and Ray Arachelian's "best
of" compilations are a different matter, for reasons discussed many times
here.)

So, why hasn't this message appeared on one of the two lists?

--Tim May



>Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1997 08:43:35 -0800
>To: cypherpunks@toad.com
>From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>
>Subject: Re: Moderation [Tim,Sandy]
>Cc:
>Bcc:
>X-Attachments:
>
>
>I decided to subscribe only to the "cypherpunks flames" list, just to see
>what was being filtered into it.
>
>The message below is one example of what is going there. I received it,
>and the header includes the line: "Sender:
>owner-cypherpunks-unedited@toad.com", so I am surmising that it was indeed
>filtered into the flames list.
>
>Now, admittedly, the _content_ of this kind of post is "off-topic," but I
>sure don't see any evidence of _flames_.
>
>Is Sandy now filtering based on his notions of list relevance, and not
>just on the basis of insults, jabs, flames, and "lack of comity"? While
>lack of relevance may be a criterion for someone to filter by, it doesn't
>square with anything I recall Sandy citing, and it introduces a new and
>dimension to the debate.
>
>--Tim May
>
>(The entire post is included, to ensure that no one claims I am editing
>out any flames, insults, etc.)
>
>
>At 11:06 PM -0800 2/5/97, Dale Thorn wrote:
>>Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
>>> Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net> writes:
>>
>>> > > > The drunk can be excluded, but when someone wants to use the drunk as
>>> > > > an example to escalate the exclusion to other persons who are not in
>>> > > > fact drunk, watch out!
>>
>>> > > If I get really really drunk, which happens very seldom, then I'm
>>> > > too drunk to post. I don't mind an occasional beer, though.
>>
>>> > > Oksas, have you ever tried beer? :-)
>>
>>> > I had my first beer(s) in three years at one of those industrial
>>> > parties last night.  It made the craps table action seem a bit
>>> > merrier, and the girls were friendlier too.
>>
>>> I like an occasional Coors Lite.  BTW I think Limey Faggots are right about
>>> one think: I like room-temperature beer better than cold beer. YMMV.
>>
>>Interesting coincidence for people on opposite coasts - the bar at
>>the hotel had two choices:  Bud regular and Coors light.  I took the
>>Coors.
>
>
>
>
>

Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Tim May writes:

> My posting seem to be going into Limbo, being sent neither to the
> Cypherpunks Heaven Sandy administers nor to the flames of the Cypherpunks
> Hell. At least this is how things now appear.

> I sent the message below to the list this morning (Thursday) at 8:43 a.m.
> PST. As of tonight, 12 hours later, I haven't seen it on either the
> Singapore Web site--last archived 30 minutes ago--or on the "Flames" list
> to which I have temporarily subscribed (to see what Sandy counts as a
> "flame").

Now that a few weeks have passed, I have decided that moderation delays
are the most annoying feature of the new experiment.  I am subscribed to 
the unedited list under another account, and its almost instantaneous
traffic is in great contrast to the time required for posts to trickle
through the Sandfort-Bot. 

> By the way, I noted that many of the messages which appeared at the
> Singapore Web archive site have dates much later than mine, including
> several dated at least 8-10 hours after my message. Likewise, some of the
> Flames messages are dated much later than my message.

Messages apparently do not get moderated in the order in which they 
are received.  Some messages take a very long time, as other later
messages pass them by and are posted to the list.  Again, I have no
explanation for this unusual behavior.

--
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $

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

C'punks,

On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Mike Duvos wrote:

> ...Messages apparently do not get moderated in the order in
> which they are received...

All messages are filtered and posted in the order in which I
receive them.


 S a n d y

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

SANDY SANDFORT sez:

> On Fri, 7 Feb 1997, Mike Duvos wrote:

> > ...Messages apparently do not get moderated in the order in
> > which they are received...

> All messages are filtered and posted in the order in which I
> receive them.

That's all very nice, but I should point out that I have not yet
seen my message to which you are responding on the filtered list. 

Others mileage may vary. 

--
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $

In a previous message, I wrote:

> That's all very nice, but I should point out that I have not yet
> seen my message to which you are responding on the filtered list. 

It just trickled into my mailbox.  I take that back.

--
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $

>
>(It is true that Vulis uses the phrase "Limey faggots," in reference to
>beer-serving habits, but he does not directly insult any list members with
>this phrase. If Sandy is calling this phrase a flame, then Cypherpunks will
>be blocked from their usual characterizations of Congresscritters and NSA
>stooges.)

TCM defending Vulis, I think I've died and am in some strange
dreamworld. hehehehe

"Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com> writes:

> >(It is true that Vulis uses the phrase "Limey faggots," in reference to
> >beer-serving habits, but he does not directly insult any list members with
> >this phrase. If Sandy is calling this phrase a flame, then Cypherpunks will
> >be blocked from their usual characterizations of Congresscritters and NSA
> >stooges.)
>
> TCM defending Vulis, I think I've died and am in some strange
> dreamworld. hehehehe

I actually liked most of what TCM wrote (even when not crypto-relevant)
and find myself missing his essays.  He was wrong to start flaming me for
no reason and to attribute to me stuff I never said; but we all make
mistakes and can get over them.

Saying bullshit about people (like Tim saying bullshit about me and
me saying bullshit about people) is one thing; it can be fun, or it
can be annoying when taken to extremes; but I've never sought
to silence Tim, and have no hard evidence that he tried to silence
anyone.

P.S. CMEPTb COBKAM!

---

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

At 12:59 PM -0800 2/7/97, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
>>
>>(It is true that Vulis uses the phrase "Limey faggots," in reference to
>>beer-serving habits, but he does not directly insult any list members with
>>this phrase. If Sandy is calling this phrase a flame, then Cypherpunks will
>>be blocked from their usual characterizations of Congresscritters and NSA
>>stooges.)
>
>TCM defending Vulis, I think I've died and am in some strange
>dreamworld. hehehehe

I'm arguing against two things:

1. The basic notion of centralized moderation, with the name "Cypherpunks"
now closely associated with a Big Brotherish, "we know what's better for
you than you do" sort of censorship.

2. The apparently careless and inconsistent way Sandy is censoring posts.
As others have also noted, non-flamish posts are being sent to the Flames
list. A censor who will not take the time to read the list traffic on a
continuing basis, e.g., by spending the several hours a day on it that many
of us spend (or used to spend), is not suited to be a censor. I suggested
at the time of his self-appointment to the role of Censor that Sandy would
not devote the needed time to this task. (Not that this makes censorship
OK, mind you.)

I'm not defending Vulis per se, and I continue to think Vulis is a twit.
But one of the goals Vulis apparently set out to accomplish (just as you
did a couple of years ago, Larry) was to force the list to start censoring
itself, even to force the list to shut down.

It seems likely that Vulis is quite happy with the outcome here.

--Tim May



Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."