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

> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:24:57 -0500 (EST)
> From: aga <aga@dhp.com>
> 
> 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."

No.  Who said that, and why do you think the person was serious, let
alone telling the truth?

> 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.

According to the American Heritage dictionary:
  bigot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion,
     race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

According to Webster:
  bigot n. One obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions
     and prejudices

I see nothing that limits bigotry to racial intolerance.

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

Most would disagree, and decide based on that and other statements you
have made that you must be an extremely unpleasant person.

If you want to fight censorship effectively, going around telling
people "You're a shit-eating faggot you fucking cock-sucking homo
censor" in public forums is not going to win you many points.
Instead, it will quickly land you in many people's killfiles, and will
eventually lead some people with bad client software to wonder if it
wouldn't be worth giving up some freedom of speech for the benefit of
not having to see your rants any more.

I'm not saying you don't have a right to express your opinions.  I'm
just remarking that you appear to be more in the business of inducing
censorship than fighting it.  If that's the case, so be it; someone
has to get censored in order for people to fight censorship, and
exposing people's willingness to censor is not necessarily a bad thing
in itself.

Unfortunately, it sort of makes life harder for those who actually
fight the censorship when you pretend to be one of them.  Your
argument seems to run something like, "To protect freedom of speech,
bad all faggots from the net, and especially don't let them run any
mailing lists."  If this offensive and highly noticeable argument
eclipses many of the important, fundamental ones as the censors would
like it too (why do you think your articles make it to cypherpunks-
flames while mine only get as far as -unedited), you will end up not
only inducing censorship but also seriously hampering the efforts of
those who are legitimately fighting that censorship.

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

See above.

On 13 Feb 1997, Against Moderation wrote:

> Date: 13 Feb 1997 17:17:32 -0000
> From: Against Moderation <antimod@nym.alias.net>
> To: aga@dhp.com
> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com, cypherpunks@pgh.org, ichudov@algebra.com,
>     dlv@bwalk.dm.com, freedom-knights@jetcafe.org
> Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
> 
> > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 11:24:57 -0500 (EST)
> > From: aga <aga@dhp.com>
> > 
> > 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."
> 
> No.  Who said that, and why do you think the person was serious, let
> alone telling the truth?
> 
It was on the list last month, and the person was serious and correct.
That is exactly why we must now kill all of usenet as it stands, for
a new heterosexual beginning.

> > 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.
> 
> According to the American Heritage dictionary:
>   bigot n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion,
>      race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
> 

Nothing in there about faggots or cunts, is there?

> According to Webster:
>   bigot n. One obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions
>      and prejudices
> 

Nothing in there about faggots or cunts, is there?


Again, MY definition of a "bigot" is the correct one which is
most understood by modern people.

A "bigot" is a racist, period.

> I see nothing that limits bigotry to racial intolerance.
> 

You are a fool then.  Religion and sexism and groups all have nothing
to do with bigotry.  A bigot is a racist, period.  That is TODAY'S
correct definition of the term, and I am a lot more current than
Webster.  Any anybody who has a "religion" and "prays" is a fool.
The only god you will ever find is within yourself.

> > It is very logical and wise to discriminate on the basis of sex.
> 
> Most would disagree, and decide based on that and other statements you
> have made that you must be an extremely unpleasant person.
> 

See, there you go again, attacking the person, instead of the
argument.  You lose points for that.  Sexism is GOOD and right and
justified.  I want a woman cutting my hair, and a man fixing my car,
and I demand the correct sex for ALL activities.

> If you want to fight censorship effectively, going around telling
> people "You're a shit-eating faggot you fucking cock-sucking homo
> censor" in public forums is not going to win you many points.

Look sonny, I am not out to win any points.  I have two Doctorates and
22 years of experience.   I speak with authority and only to those who
have the intelligence to understand.   I was a perfect 4.00 in
College, and am probably the most intelligent body-politic analyst in
the world.  Now let's face it:  Faggots are BAD news.  They are most
always censors!  And that is the truth you can never get around.
  
> Instead, it will quickly land you in many people's killfiles, and will
> eventually lead some people with bad client software to wonder if it
> wouldn't be worth giving up some freedom of speech for the benefit of
> not having to see your rants any more.
> 

Hey boy, I am too strong to stop.  I have more people and, more money
and more connections than you could ever dream of.  We are here to
"rip new assholes" in the faggots who have ruined the net thus far,
and to take over and make this net heterosexual oriented.  Just wait
until you see me in person some day; you are in for a big suprise.

> I'm not saying you don't have a right to express your opinions.  I'm
> just remarking that you appear to be more in the business of inducing
> censorship than fighting it.  

No, all censorship shall be eliminated from this Net and I will
fight to the death to achieve that.  The only way to stop us is to
kill all of us, and you can not do that.  I have 6 or 8 associates
that you are unaware of, and we plan to KILL the current system real
soon.

> If that's the case, so be it; someone
> has to get censored in order for people to fight censorship, and
> exposing people's willingness to censor is not necessarily a bad thing
> in itself.
> 

So you plan on censoring me?  Not likely sonny boy.  I have more
connections than you have fingers on your one hand.

> Unfortunately, it sort of makes life harder for those who actually
> fight the censorship when you pretend to be one of them.  Your
> argument seems to run something like, "To protect freedom of speech,
> bad all faggots from the net, and especially don't let them run any
> mailing lists."  

That is a good idea.  Faggots are most always censors, and can not be
trusted with heterosexual people.

> If this offensive and highly noticeable argument
> eclipses many of the important, fundamental ones as the censors would
> like it too (why do you think your articles make it to cypherpunks-
> flames while mine only get as far as -unedited), 

Because of the faggot.  They always try to censor the TRUTH!

> you will end up not
> only inducing censorship but also seriously hampering the efforts of
> those who are legitimately fighting that censorship.
> 

Look sonny, we are out to KILL John Gilmore's control of this net, and
your listing of the -three- different lists manufactured by that
fucking queer should put the icing on the cake.

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

Again:

Most faggots are censorous, and therefore NO faggots should ever have
any control over any "censoring" acvtivities of this net.  Period.

We have come to the time when one's sex and sexual orientation
should be clearly stated on all e-mail and Usenet commo.  Everyone
should start providing the data, for the good of the community.

No one should be forced to communicate with a faggot.

aga <aga@dhp.com> writes:

> > > ...  Remember the previous cypherpunk who stated that the
> > > gays "created and run usenet."
> ...
> It was on the list last month, and the person was serious and correct.
> That is exactly why we must now kill all of usenet as it stands, for
> a new heterosexual beginning.
>
> ...  We are here to
> "rip new assholes" in the faggots who have ruined the net thus far,
> and to take over and make this net heterosexual oriented.

So if I follow your argument, gays created and run usenet, and have
also ruined it thus far.  Can you just clarify a few points?  I'm
trying to follow your premise here [which I don't necessarily
believe], and it seems contradictory.

  * If gays ruined usenet, does that mean at one point usenet was a
    good thing before it was ruined?  If so, gay people at least
    deserve credit for creating something good, even if they didn't
    manage to run it well.

  * If Usenet was created and ruined by terrible people, what exactly
    is your interest in it?  Why don't you just create an alternate
    news network.  You can easily do this using software these gay
    people have so graciously given you the source for, and then you
    could be the authority over the entire heterosexual news
    hierarchy.

  * If people you consider gay can't hold any position of authority on
    the internet, why do you acknowledge their authority by trying to
    fight them in particular?  I mean, what authority do these gay
    people have over a gay, ruined usenet that's so important you need
    to rip new assholes in them?

I just don't understand whom you are fighting over what and why.

Against Moderation wrote:
> aga <aga@dhp.com> writes:
> > > > ...  Remember the previous cypherpunk who stated that the
> > > > gays "created and run usenet."
> > ...
> > It was on the list last month, and the person was serious and correct.
> > That is exactly why we must now kill all of usenet as it stands, for
> > a new heterosexual beginning.
> >
> > ...  We are here to
> > "rip new assholes" in the faggots who have ruined the net thus far,
> > and to take over and make this net heterosexual oriented.
> 
> So if I follow your argument, gays created and run usenet, and have
> also ruined it thus far.  Can you just clarify a few points?  I'm
> trying to follow your premise here [which I don't necessarily
> believe], and it seems contradictory.
> 
>   * If gays ruined usenet, does that mean at one point usenet was a
>     good thing before it was ruined?  If so, gay people at least
>     deserve credit for creating something good, even if they didn't
>     manage to run it well.

Some say, in fact, that Internet and USENET have been created by Dr. 
Grubor.

> I just don't understand whom you are fighting over what and why.

	- Igor.

Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> 
> Some say, in fact, that Internet and USENET have been created by 
> Dr. Grubor.
> 
>         - Igor.

  
   Yes this is true--Dr. Grubor is the founder of all of 
CyberSpace (tm).

                       Steve

On 15 Feb 1997, Against Moderation wrote:

> Date: 15 Feb 1997 06:02:43 -0000
> From: Against Moderation <antimod@nym.alias.net>
> Reply-To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org
> To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org
> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com, ichudov@algebra.com, dlv@bwalk.dm.com
> Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
> 
> aga <aga@dhp.com> writes:
> 
> > > > ...  Remember the previous cypherpunk who stated that the
> > > > gays "created and run usenet."
> > ...
> > It was on the list last month, and the person was serious and correct.
> > That is exactly why we must now kill all of usenet as it stands, for
> > a new heterosexual beginning.
> >
> > ...  We are here to
> > "rip new assholes" in the faggots who have ruined the net thus far,
> > and to take over and make this net heterosexual oriented.
> 
> So if I follow your argument, gays created and run usenet, and have
> also ruined it thus far. 

Right, like O'Donnel or whatever his name is. The faggot at AOL.

 Can you just clarify a few points?  I'm
> trying to follow your premise here [which I don't necessarily
> believe], and it seems contradictory.
> 
>   * If gays ruined usenet, does that mean at one point usenet was a
>     good thing before it was ruined?  


It may have been; but that was at least more than 5 years ago.
Usenet has been ruined ever since David Lawrence took over from
Spafford.  They took over because they knew how to program in UNIX,
big deal.  The world has now all changed.

If so, gay people at least
>     deserve credit for creating something good, even if they didn't
>     manage to run it well.

O.K. fine, but the current system is broken, and that includes David
Lawrence and Chris Lewis and the INN conspiracy forged by Dave Barr
and his little boy partner Tim Skirvin, as well as the BOFH assholes
Peter da Silva and P.J. Falk.   And the crazy cabal.cunt Windigo
Ferral has been running all over making spurious complaints to all
kinds of postmasters, and the assholes just go on and on......

This is all based upon some homosexuals having positions of power
where they should not.  It is an admirable goal to kill the current
usenet.

> 
>   * If Usenet was created and ruined by terrible people, what exactly
>     is your interest in it?  

It is public property and we are the public.  The public majority is
heterosexual, and the ruling alpha male must also be same.

>     Why don't you just create an alternate
>     news network.  You can easily do this using software these gay
>     people have so graciously given you the source for, and then you
>     could be the authority over the entire heterosexual news
>     hierarchy.
> 

Nobody has given me anything.  I invent the tools that we need to
kill the current system.  The mother of all tools is the lawsuit,
but it is to be used only when necessary.


>   * If people you consider gay can't hold any position of authority on
>     the internet, why do you acknowledge their authority by trying to
>     fight them in particular?  

"can't" means should not, and Peter Berger is an example of a faggot
who needs eliminated from his job.  He is a dangerous and censorous
person, and a very queer faggot.  Just an example of the many queers
that need removed.

I mean, what authority do these gay
>     people have over a gay, ruined usenet that's so important you need
>     to rip new assholes in them?
> 

"ripping a new asshole" is just a phrase from the streets.
It has nothing to do with actual anuses or copulation whatsoever.

> I just don't understand whom you are fighting over what and why.
> 

The cabal.UUNET.BOFH.faggots

Why?  Because I am a heterosexual alpha male, and it needs done.

Faggots are VERY pink, and Dobbs does not like faggots.

Against Moderation <antimod@nym.alias.net> writes:

> aga <aga@dhp.com> writes:
>
> > > > ...  Remember the previous cypherpunk who stated that the
> > > > gays "created and run usenet."
> > ...
> > It was on the list last month, and the person was serious and correct.
> > That is exactly why we must now kill all of usenet as it stands, for
> > a new heterosexual beginning.
> >
> > ...  We are here to
> > "rip new assholes" in the faggots who have ruined the net thus far,
> > and to take over and make this net heterosexual oriented.
>
> So if I follow your argument, gays created and run usenet, and have

Not true. Homos created Fidonet. Tom Jenkins was one. Normal people created
Usenet. (That is, some of the people who created Usenet may well have been
sexually attracted to people of the same sex in real life - I don't have a
problem with that - but none of them were "Usenet faggots" who tried to
suppress free speech). Now the homos, who ruined Fidonet through
censorship and UDP-like wars, are trying to take over Usenet with the same
disasterous results.

> also ruined it thus far.  Can you just clarify a few points?  I'm
> trying to follow your premise here [which I don't necessarily
> believe], and it seems contradictory.
>
>   * If gays ruined usenet, does that mean at one point usenet was a
>     good thing before it was ruined?  If so, gay people at least
>     deserve credit for creating something good, even if they didn't
>     manage to run it well.

Suppose for argument's sake that the people who created Usenet all
happened to be gay. Why would "gay people" as a whole, most of whom
had nothing to do with it, deserve credit for it?

>   * If Usenet was created and ruined by terrible people, what exactly
>     is your interest in it?  Why don't you just create an alternate
>     news network.  You can easily do this using software these gay
>     people have so graciously given you the source for, and then you
>     could be the authority over the entire heterosexual news
>     hierarchy.

We were here first. I've been on Usenet for > 10 years, before most of the
scum that's trying to ruin it now. Besides, the homos will try to ruin any
alternative forum they think is used by their "enemies". Look how they've
been flooding the freedom-knights mailing list with shit.

>   * If people you consider gay can't hold any position of authority on
>     the internet, why do you acknowledge their authority by trying to
>     fight them in particular?  I mean, what authority do these gay
>     people have over a gay, ruined usenet that's so important you need
>     to rip new assholes in them?
>
> I just don't understand whom you are fighting over what and why.

Good question. I'm fighting against _actions that suppress speech - such
as complaints to postmasters that result in plug-pulling; or forged cancels.
If false complaints were universally ignored - cancels junked, postmaster
complaints junked, as they should be, then these actions would be just
speech, therefore not worthy of suppression. I don't want the homos to be
silenced, merely rendered impotent to silence others.

dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) writes:

> >   * If gays ruined usenet, does that mean at one point usenet was a
> >     good thing before it was ruined?  If so, gay people at least
> >     deserve credit for creating something good, even if they didn't
> >     manage to run it well.
> 
> Suppose for argument's sake that the people who created Usenet all
> happened to be gay. Why would "gay people" as a whole, most of whom
> had nothing to do with it, deserve credit for it?

Okay.  Suppose for argument's sake that the people who are censoring
Usenet all happen to be gay?  Why, then, would all gay people deserve
blame for these actions?

Now suppose they aren't gay.  Them whom are these homohpobic rants
really attacking?  Gay people or censors?  If you say, for instance,
"New cypherpunks list for heterosexuals only", who do you think is
actually going to be affected by this?  Certainly not Gilmore who is
completely disillusioned with cypherpunks at this point and not likely
to subscribe any mailing list a person like that runs anyway.  Rather,
you are attacking people who happen to be gay but would otherwise be
interested in subscribing to the mailing list.

Now suppose it's not instantly possible to discern a person's sexual
orientation over the internet, as Dr. Grubor claims it is.  Suppose
further that some of the people who censor Usenet are gay, and others
aren't.  Some of the people in favor of free speech are gay, others
are not.  Many of those who are straight don't just come out and say,
"I am not gay," for the simple reason that they oppose discrimination
based on sexual orientation and don't believe one's sexual orientation
should be relevant to a debate on censorship.  In such a case,
refocusing the debate on homosexuality rather than censorship hardly
furthers your objectives.

I believe homophobia is a great way to bring out the censors in
people.  However, inducing censorship is only part of fighting it.
You also need respectable people to some in, argue cogently against
the dangers of censorship, perhaps even get some extremely reasonable
articles suppressed, and then spread the word about it.  I find the
freedom-knights tactics' extremely lacking in this second, "clean up
and analyze the mess" phase.

As a recent example illustrates well, Vulis did a nice job of inducing
censorship on cypherpunks.  However, I think most peoples' opinions
didn't really turn, or at least people didn't realize how serious
things were and didn't really care, until Tim May [someone the many
freedom-knights hate] started criticizing this censorship in extremely
reasonable messages that were suppressed from both the -edited and
-flames mailing list.

Against Moderation wrote:
> 
> dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) writes:
> 
>I believe homophobia is a great way to bring out the censors in
>people.  However, inducing censorship is only part of fighting it.
>You also need respectable people to some in, argue cogently against
>the dangers of censorship, perhaps even get some extremely reasonable
>articles suppressed, and then spread the word about it.  I find the
>freedom-knights tactics' extremely lacking in this second, "clean up
>and analyze the mess" phase.
> 

  Yes but the process is a very long term one--you seemed focused
on this specific instance.  I'm especially interested in the demise
of plug pulling sys admins for example--they should be hung by their
balls from the highest pole--the kind of net.slime EFF protects.  As
for analysis and cleanup that's a bit easier to contain on a list
as opposed to the usenet at large.

>As a recent example illustrates well, Vulis did a nice job of inducing
>censorship on cypherpunks.  However, I think most peoples' opinions
>didn't really turn, or at least people didn't realize how serious
>things were and didn't really care, until Tim May [someone the many
>freedom-knights hate] started criticizing this censorship in extremely
>reasonable messages that were suppressed from both the -edited and
>-flames mailing list.

  And for that to happen vivid examples of such censorship had to 
occur and a snake was exposed as being a snake.  Seems like it worked
extremely well to me.  It also appears that the cleanup you rightly
refer to is happening as a natural progression--same will be true
hopefully on a broader scale on usenet when others personally get
a taste of the censorship that is lurking behind every corner.  
And for those who jumped on the bandwagon because Mr. May was
being censored as oppossed to Dr. Vulis--they are sad people indeed.

                          Steve

Read this and you will understand why we must 
take heed of these dangerous homosexuals who have
infiltrated Usenet in the past five years, ever since
David Lawrence took over.  J.D. Falk, the perverted
child molester from the D.C. area has had a lot to do with
this take-over by the homosexuals.  Read Dr. Vulis's account of
the last 10 years here:

On Sat, 15 Feb 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:

> Date: Sat, 15 Feb 97 08:30:15 EST
> From: "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" <dlv@bwalk.dm.com>
> Reply-To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org
> To: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
> 
> Against Moderation <antimod@nym.alias.net> writes:
> 
> > aga <aga@dhp.com> writes:
> >
> > > > > ...  Remember the previous cypherpunk who stated that the
> > > > > gays "created and run usenet."
> > > ...
> > > It was on the list last month, and the person was serious and correct.
> > > That is exactly why we must now kill all of usenet as it stands, for
> > > a new heterosexual beginning.
> > >
> > > ...  We are here to
> > > "rip new assholes" in the faggots who have ruined the net thus far,
> > > and to take over and make this net heterosexual oriented.
> >
> > So if I follow your argument, gays created and run usenet, and have
> 
> Not true. Homos created Fidonet. Tom Jenkins was one. Normal people created
> Usenet. (That is, some of the people who created Usenet may well have been
> sexually attracted to people of the same sex in real life - I don't have a
> problem with that - but none of them were "Usenet faggots" who tried to
> suppress free speech). Now the homos, who ruined Fidonet through
> censorship and UDP-like wars, are trying to take over Usenet with the same
> disasterous results.
> 
> > also ruined it thus far.  Can you just clarify a few points?  I'm
> > trying to follow your premise here [which I don't necessarily
> > believe], and it seems contradictory.
> >
> >   * If gays ruined usenet, does that mean at one point usenet was a
> >     good thing before it was ruined?  If so, gay people at least
> >     deserve credit for creating something good, even if they didn't
> >     manage to run it well.
> 
> Suppose for argument's sake that the people who created Usenet all
> happened to be gay. Why would "gay people" as a whole, most of whom
> had nothing to do with it, deserve credit for it?
> 
> >   * If Usenet was created and ruined by terrible people, what exactly
> >     is your interest in it?  Why don't you just create an alternate
> >     news network.  You can easily do this using software these gay
> >     people have so graciously given you the source for, and then you
> >     could be the authority over the entire heterosexual news
> >     hierarchy.
> 
> We were here first. I've been on Usenet for > 10 years, before most of the
> scum that's trying to ruin it now. Besides, the homos will try to ruin any
> alternative forum they think is used by their "enemies". Look how they've
> been flooding the freedom-knights mailing list with shit.
> 
> >   * If people you consider gay can't hold any position of authority on
> >     the internet, why do you acknowledge their authority by trying to
> >     fight them in particular?  I mean, what authority do these gay
> >     people have over a gay, ruined usenet that's so important you need
> >     to rip new assholes in them?
> >
> > I just don't understand whom you are fighting over what and why.
> 
> Good question. I'm fighting against _actions that suppress speech - such
> as complaints to postmasters that result in plug-pulling; or forged cancels.
> If false complaints were universally ignored - cancels junked, postmaster
> complaints junked, as they should be, then these actions would be just
> speech, therefore not worthy of suppression. I don't want the homos to be
> silenced, merely rendered impotent to silence others.
> 

The queer named J.D. Falk and the little queer called
Timmy Skirvin are also to blame for much of the shit we now
have present today.

Trust only Dave Hayes for an uncensored full-feed.