Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list

[ichudov@algebra.com]

Kevin L Prigge wrote:
> paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk said:
> > > I think both of these groups are intellectually dishonest in the
> > > extreme when it comes to telling others how this list should be
> > > run.  I doubt any of them would permit the sort of disruptive
> > > behavior that goes on here to go unchallenged in salons they
> > > sponsor in their own homes or on Net lists that they themselves 
> > > maintain.
> > 
> > If you want to talk about intellectual dishonesty try the following:
> > 
> > Imagine if you will a list, the original purpose of which was
> > to act as a free and open forum for discussion of cryptography and 
> > related issues. A list which proudly proclaims in its "welcome to 
> > the list" message:
> > 
> > We do not seek to prevent other people from
> > speaking about their experiences or their opinions.
> > 
> > Now imagine that list falling into a state of content based 
> > censorship and censorship based on an unspoken but ever present 
> > class structure, then ask yourself which list you know that most 
> > closely matches this description, it`s a pretty revealing exercise.
> 
> The exercise reveals to me that only by ignoring the first paragraph
> of your example, the part that reads "Imagine if you will a list, 
> the original purpose of which was to act as a free and open forum 
> for discussion of cryptography and related issues." can you make
> a claim of content based censorship. The purpose of this list was

Then why discussion of machine guns should be allowed here?

igor