Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list

[paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk]

> > > My perfectly crypto-relevant article regarding possible attacks
> > > on human relationships with the use of forged mail and anonymous
> > > remailers, has been tossed out (sorted) into cypherpunks-flames
> > > mailing list.
> >
> > I don`t think I read the article (even though I subscribe to the
> > unmoderated list), can you forward me a copy.
> > As I understand it though, from other comentaries, it was junked
> > because it was in response to a message by Dimitri who, given that it
> > is Sandy that is moderating the list, is no doubt filtered by
> > different criteria than anyone else on the list, in my opinion a
> > censorous and fascist restraint as Dimitri has recently been posting
> > more crypto relevant material, besides which whatever the content of
> > his posts they should be open to review before a decision is made on
> > if they are to be junked or not.
> 
> Has Paul reversed his previous pro-censorship stand and decided to
> learn something about crypto from people who actually know some?

There is no change of stance needed, I happen to believe you are 
knowledgable about cryptography and sometimes post worthwhile 
commentary and information, however, you also post a lot of dreck and 
flammable material which means I respond in kind. That does not mean 
I believe you, or anyone else, should be censored.

> > > Sandy also states rather plainly that crypto-relevance is not the
> > > criterion by which he moderates this list. I question this policy.
> >
> > Yes Sandy, please enlighten us, what is the criterion you use to
> > moderate the list if not crypto-relevancy. I suspect an element of
> > self preservation and protection of the list fuhrer and diktat maker
> > John Gilmore (who, until the disgraceful incident with Dimitri
> > commanded some respect on this list).
> 
> I used to respect Gilmore until this series of incidents (unsubscribing
> me, turning list moderated).  Now I only have disdain for him.

I agree entirely, Gilmore was a respected man (despite the EFF being 
a corporate whore) who threw any respect and admiration others had 
for him away.
 
> > > I would like to hear your opinions as to whether such policies satisfy
> > > the current readership.
> >
> > I don`t think this is the point, John Gilmore is free to appoint
> > whoever he wants to moderate his list, he is free to censor all
> > messages which criticise him and his censorship, however, subscribers
> > to the list should be told they are being censored on these grounds
> > and not on some facade of "crypto relevancy" or another thin veil
> > drawn weakly over content based censorship to protect a certain class
> > of list members.
> 
> Quite a few people have expressed interest in re-creating an unmoderated
> cypherpunks list at another site if Gilmore decided to stick to his
> "moderation experiment".

I notice and appreciate the quotes around "moderation experiment", 
this is, without doubt, a permenant measure to silence members of the 
list who dare to offer criticism of anyone an element of {x: x a 
friend or co-censor of John Gilmore}

I do not have the resources to run such an unmoderated list but I 
hope someone on this list does and is good enough to start such a 
list, cypherpunks is a shell of what it once was. 

Also, please note this message will be junked onto cypherpunks-flames 
even though it contains no flames or flame bait because it dares to 
criticise the censorship of the list (once again Sandy, I give you an 
opportunity to prove me wrong).




  Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"