Re: Well-regulated

[John Young <jya@pipeline.com>]

Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:

>>Cypherpunks does not seem to me to be anything like the well-
>>regulated lists you ascribe to Prof Volokh.
>>
>
>Declan should rest his point here. the cpunk list is notorious
>for being way astray. yet cpunks continuously argue against
>anyone with a moderator type role. could there be some correlation
>between lack of moderation/leadership on the list and the 
>piles of noise that people incessantly complain about? of 
>course I'm insane for suggesting this.


Vlad,


"Well-regulated" means different things to different mind-sets.

As do "leadership," "moderator" and "anarchy."

All can be fulfilled in diametrically opposite ways: benevolent
suppression of assent to attain uninspired unanimity or pissed 
respect for your opponents skill at insulting you and your ideas,
sexual preferences, hair style, even, ahem, code and writing 
abilities.

What you call "way astray" about cypherpunks I would call
"healthy waywardness of stray cats."

I say, let the wild cats grow and wail backalley of the spiffy facades 
and green lawns; let them disturb sly cultivators of the currently 
fashionable, marketable career-boosting management of the
Internet herd.

That's my critique of the 1st Amend mongers (spit): too narrow-
minded about freedom of speech, they always give themselves
away by fanaticism about proper grammar and spelling and
behavior, well, you know, demanding polymorphous heathens 
do it like missionaries who think tongues are only for talking.

Heed the complicity of God and Mammon, one person's butthole 
is another person's way to heaven on earth. As missionaries admit
about the joys of exotic lands and stray cat codes and wailing
discourse.

The Occident is a prig, and overly addicted to a tight-laced 
definitions of propriety, heirarchy and rank. That's "well-regulated"
at its worst and meanest and murderous and censorious.