Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News

[Dave Hayes <dave@kachina.jetcafe.org>]

Firebeard (ouch!) writes:
> >>>>> Dave Hayes writes:
> >> Yes, ownership gives you a license to censor. I'm going to have a
> >> party in my home a few weeks from now. If I don't like what someone
> >> is doing, I'll kick 'em out. I won't do it lightly, but I will
> >> fight for my right to do so.
> DH> Of course, you may invite anyone you choose, since a party is
> DH> usually had by inviting people whom you select. If you invite them
> DH> and then subsequently kick them out when they do things you do not
> DH> want them to do, I will chastise -you- (if I am present) for your
> DH> lack of judgement in whom to invite. Their behavior would merely
> DH> something to learn from, yours would be fashionably dishonorable.
> 	By "kicking them out", I'd be admitting that my judgement was
> in error.  I'm big enough to admit that.  

But are you "big" (by whatever standard) enough to admit that
"judgement" of others is the error?

> Apparently, you are not big enough to admit such a thing, and would
> prefer to cower in the corner while the person whose character you
> misjudged drives everyone else away.

Why go that far? 

The people *I* generally invite to parties are quite capable of
handling whatever disturbance arises, being "big enough" to realize
that "disruptive influences" are only disruptive if one allows them
that ability.

If I've invited someone who cannot handle their own ability to be
disrupted, only -then- is my judgement in "error" by the standard
of "error" you seem to be espousing. 

> DH> BTW, "Kicking them out" is not censorship. A party and a mailing
> DH> list are usually two different things. The former may include the
> DH> latter, but the latter is not anything like the former.
> >> Oh, and I plan to subscribe to the freedom-knights mailing list and
> >> infest it the way Vulis did cypherpunks. Every hour, on the hour, a
> >> crontab script will flood it with rants about Dave (fart) Hayes.
> DH> You won't do this, because I won't let you on the list. I, unlike
> DH> you or Mr. Gilmore, have the judgement on whom to invite to my
> DH> list.
> 	And Mr Gilmore may not have had the proper judgement, in
> allowing everyone to join the list.  

"Proper" in the sense you seem to mean it, implies that you understand
the goal Mr. Gilmore had in mind in allowing everyone to join the
list.

> But he was big enough to admit that he had made an error in
> judgement, and take steps to deal with that error, rather than deny
> that he had made the error.  Perhaps his judgement was in error
> regarding the steps he took, but I expect that if he reaches the
> conclusion that he was again in error, he will admit that.  Perhaps
> that judgement of mine is in error, but I'm big enough to admit that
> I'm not perfect.

Well. -I-, on the other hand, am so big that I have no need to
copiously announce the obvious fact of my imperfection to the world,
so I can afford to pretend that I am perfect.
------
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org 
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet

A passerby caught Nasrudin prying open the window of his own bedroom from 
the outside in the depths of night. "What are you doing? Locked out?"
"Hush!" came the reply. "They say I walk in my sleep. I am trying to surprise
myself and find out."