Who's Censoring Who?

Sandy's e-mailed several of us who've sent messages about Vulis's
ploy to put Sandy in a conflict-of-interest bind -- a well-known attack 
on moderators of all kinds, not just on the net. 

What's worth admiring is how Vulis has adeptly managed to get others
 -- targets and witting and unwitting cohorts -- to go along with his attack, 
attack, attack, by opposing or supporting it. A useful lesson.

Smart dude, that Vulis, but no more so than others on the Net, say, Tim
May, and in the world who've done the same elsewhere, maybe 
by even smarter dude(s) who provoked, angered, insulted, an unwitting 
Vulis, or May, to attack on behalf of ... 

But such deception is to be expected, along with feigned suprise and
outrage at the unfairness of opponents fighting as dirty as one's own
pure-blackhearts.

Sandy's not censoring cypherpunks, nor is Vulis or May or any single 
person alone. As Pogo said, it's all of us, posters and lurkers and spooks, 
each trying to get one's way to prevail, under guise of a high principle not 
easily honored when the squeeze is on alone in a dark cell. Come on out
Sandy, it was just a drill.

It's probably worth saving accusations of censorship for the real thing, 
after trial usage here for what is truly nasty high-stakes global info-war 
gaming.

John Young wrote:
 > Sandy's e-mailed several of us who've sent messages about Vulis's
 > ploy to put Sandy in a conflict-of-interest bind
 
   Did Sandy happen to mention how the evil Dr. Vulis managed to
 twist his impressionable young mind so that his only concern about
 libel is centered around his employer?
 
   Did Sandy mention why his employer went nuclear over the mention
 of the 'b-d' word by an individual whom his employees on the list
 regularly label as a troublemaker and a nut case?
 (Methinks they doth protest _too_ much?)
 
   Did Sandy mention that his employer is in the postion of owning
 the cypherpunks.com domain-name and is in a great postion to profit
 by controlling and/or destroying the cypherpunks list?
   Did Sandy mention that when his own takeover of the list (by
 virtue of 'moving' the subscribers into a list filtered by himself)
 faltered, by becoming an open joke, that one of his fellow employees
 called for the "killing" of the list?
   Did Sandy mention that the pecker-tracks of his employers minions
 leave a sordid trail across the whole face of this whole censorship
 farce?
 
   Gee, John, I wish that I had crypto software to sell, and employees
 who were in control of the reputation capital of the cypherpunks list.
 I wish that I had a domain named cypherpunks.com waiting to capitalize
 on the cypherpunks name to sell my crypto software.
   Of course, some asshole somewhere might regard this as a "ploy"
 to profit from creating misfortune for the cypherpunks. They might
 even think that I had a hand in that misfortune.
 
 
 > It's probably worth saving accusations of censorship for the real 
> thing 
   What fucking planet have you been living on, shit-for-brains?
   We're not talking about "accusations," here. We're talking about
 posts by average list subscribers who are coming forward and speaking
 out about the facts surrounding the misappropriation of their posts
 in order to further the private interests of Sandy.
   We're talking about the suppression of postings which Question
 Authority. We're talking about shit-canning postings without
 informing the list, because the actions are reprehensible. We're
 talking about censorship which, in the censor's own words, is not
 based on crypto-relevancy, but a changing morass of ill-defined
 'Sandy rules' (or 'Sandy Rules!', if you prefer).
   We're talking about robotic censorship where those who do not
 bend under the jackboots suppressing free speech on the cypherpunks
 list are auto-botted to cypherpunks-dontsaybadthingsaboutmyemployer.
 
   Your posts are usually fairly intelligent, so I have no idea why
 you are wasting your own reputation capital attempting to defend
 an inept, lame-duck censor who is too cowardly to defend his own
 vile actions.
   Instead, he declares that he has absolutely no interest in
 filtering out the "Make Money Fast" and "Penis-Picture" garbage
 for list members if he can't use his usurped-power to slam the
 jackboots down on any niggling detail that doesn't serve his
 own private interests.
 
 Cuckoo (<-- Dr. Vulis 'made' me use this name.)

Cuckoo <cuckoo@cuckoo.com> writes:

>  Cuckoo (<-- Dr. Vulis 'made' me use this name.)

Blaming Sandy Sandfart for his outrageous acts and forgetting about John
Gilmore and Sameer parekh is like blaming Eichmann and forgetting Adolf
Hitler - the great vegetarian, many of whose subordinates said at Nuremberg,
"I was only following my orders!"

Show some compassion, you you. :-) If C2Net folds and/or if Sameer fires
Sandy for blowing the "moderation experiment", Sandy might have difficulty
finding anothr job. Is he on Timmy May's "don't hire" list?

---

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

John Young wrote:

> Sandy's e-mailed several of us who've sent messages about Vulis's
> ploy to put Sandy in a conflict-of-interest bind -- a well-known attack
> on moderators of all kinds, not just on the net.

Now you've admitted that Sandy, ever more desperate, is grasping
for allies for some future attack.  And you've accused Dr. Vulis
of plotting against Sandy.  Tsk tsk.

> What's worth admiring is how Vulis has adeptly managed to get others
>  -- targets and witting and unwitting cohorts -- to go along with his attack,
> attack, attack, by opposing or supporting it. A useful lesson.

This is not the healthy kind of paranoia.

> Smart dude, that Vulis, but no more so than others on the Net, say,
> Tim May, and in the world who've done the same elsewhere, maybe
> by even smarter dude(s) who provoked, angered, insulted, an unwitting
> Vulis, or May, to attack on behalf of ...

Tim May in the same breath as Dr. Vulis?  I underestimated the level
of desperation here.

> But such deception is to be expected, along with feigned suprise and
> outrage at the unfairness of opponents fighting as dirty as one's own
> pure-blackhearts.

Neither I nor (I'm certain) Dr. Vulis are surprised by any of this.
Who were you referring to?

> Sandy's not censoring cypherpunks, nor is Vulis or May or any single
> person alone. As Pogo said, it's all of us, posters and lurkers and spooks,
> each trying to get one's way to prevail, under guise of a high principle not
> easily honored when the squeeze is on alone in a dark cell. Come on out
> Sandy, it was just a drill.

Well, he claims he's not censoring anymore.  If you believe that,
you're probably waiting for the Easter bunny.

> It's probably worth saving accusations of censorship for the real thing,
> after trial usage here for what is truly nasty high-stakes global info-war
> gaming.

Blah blah blah blah.  Bottom line is this:  "Moderation" is really
censorship.  You can go on with this "plausible denial" all you
want to, but the jig is up, so to speak.  They've been caught being
sneaky and deceptive with people's mail.  Naughty naughty.