Re: A vote of confidence for Sandy

[Rich Graves <rcgraves@disposable.com>]

Ray Arachelian wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 6 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:
> 
> > 1. Sandfort is the person who would never drop an argument, no matter
> >    how long, until he had the last word.  I know since I went rounds
>
> Sandfort isn't the only one who will do this, there will be a pool of
> moderators. Regardless of your personality conflict, I am sure that Sandy
> will remain fair and allow appropriate posts from you through. i.e.
> anything to do with crypto. :)

Come on, the de facto topics of this list aren't limited to crypto.

I'd just like to say that as disgusting as I find most of Dale's posts,
I consider almost all of them appropriate for the list.

[The referenced post isn't one of them, of course.]

Is the goal really to be a "best of cypherpunks," or is it just to cut out the 
most inane trolling (of which there is a lot)? While I'd classify Dale's posts 
as among "worst of cypherpunks," IMO they are all at least *of* cypherpunks.

I would not favor a moderation policy that gave carte blanche to "good guys" 
to talk about whatever they wanted ("libertarian bullshit" in Chudov's 
delicate phrasing), but required posts by "bad guys" like Dale (and in certain 
threads, me -- you never know) to be "about crypto." That's a hypocritical 
double standard.

I just want the complete crap out of the way. I was envisioning a mostly 
unfiltered cypherpunks where the traffic level remained so high that the 
filtered "best of" lists like fcpunx were still in demand.

Of course, I'm reading cypherpunks only a couple times a day via nntp, so I'm 
more tolerant of nonsense than people who want to follow the list as an email 
list. To those people I'd say sorry, but cryptography@c2.net is available. But 
I'm only one voice; the moderators can do whatever they want.

-rich