Re: [NOISE] If the shoe fits, wear it [VULIS]

[Rich Graves <rcgraves@ix.netcom.com>]

networks@vir.com wrote:
> 
> Rich Graves Wrote:
> 
> >You [meaning Vulis] are of course free to rant and rave about his 
> >[John's] hypocrisy, but expecially since you'll always be able
> >to post to the list, at least under a nym (the only thing he's
> >prevented is your reading the list under your own name), you're
> >only proving yourself to be an idiot.
> 
> The nature of the Internet means it is extremely difficult for John
> to prevent Dr. Vulis from either posting using a pseudonym or
> having messages forwarded to him.  IF it were possible to prevent
> Vulis from either reading messages or posting do you think John
> would have done that too?  Just curious.

I think that gets into "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" 
territory, because it just isn't, and I certainly don't speak for him. 
But...

1. None of the "it was the right thing to do" crowd, which runs the
   gamut from my perspective to Sandy Sandfort's (concurring in
   conclusion, but radically different in reasoning), has said
   to indicate that such action would be totally wrong.

2. In my opinion, such action would deserve strict scrutiny -- not in   
   the legal sense, because it's a private matter, but from interested
   parties, yes. The "hypocrisy" and "arbitrary and capricious"
   judgements should be made and discussed by the users of the list. If
   they(we) think the action is wrong, we'd protest or leave. This is
   a question of persuasion or "voting with our feet," though, not of
   law.

Personally, I wish Vulis would just go away, permanently, and I would 
not consider any nonviolent, non-net-abusing means to stop his ravings 
inappropriate. However, I do not believe that there are any nonviolent, 
non-net-abusing means to stop his ravings, so we're at an impasse, as 
far as the cypherpunks list is concerned. I think that if this became a 
forum for Vulis-bashing, and he were unable to respond, then that would 
be very wrong; but I just don't see that happening. I can think of 
several examples where that kind of thing has happened, some of which I 
thought were reasonable (given the way the relevant forums were 
advertised), others of which I thought showed the moderator to be an 
intolerant, hypocritical asshole.

Given the facts of this case, I do not consider John to be an 
intolerant, hypocritical asshole. Given your hypothetical, and speaking 
only of Vulis, not of "others similarly situated," I would think no less 
of John if he were to decide to implement the technically impossible, 
provided that there was procedural transparency. I.e., announcing what 
had happened and allowing discussion of what happened was the right 
thing to do. Only if he kicked people off without telling the list, or 
lied about his reasons for doing so, or suppressed dissent with his 
actions -- which has happened in other moderated forums, but not here -- 
then would I have a serious [moral and personal, not legal or 
philosophical, since people have the right to be hypocritical assholes 
if they want to be] problem with it.

-rich