[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
> I distinctly recall how Paul used to call for censoring me. If he's
> changed his mind and really doesn't think that anyone should be censored,
> it's a welcome development - even if it was brought on by the sandfart
> censoring Paul.
That is strange indeed as I distinctly recall saying, in as many
words, I was "Happy you had stopped posting", as at that time nearly
everything you posted was dreck as far as I was concerned. I also
recall calling John Gilmore a Fascist censor and several other such
things over the incident when you were forcibly unsubscribed from the
list. I never advocated censorship, I was merely relieved you had
stopped posting so much dreck to the list. Anyway, I don`t want a
flame war over it so we`ll just agree to differ over this.
> > > 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 wonder what he thinks he got in exchange...
A nice clean list where he and his bunch of "chums" can post whatever
slanderous flames they want but the victims are not allowed to
respond.
> > > 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}
>
> Yes - clearly the personality of the submitter is the most important
> factor in moderator's rejections, not even the content.
Indeed, content based censorship is of an order way above (if any
censorship is better than any other) censorship based on subjective
criterion such as personality. At least with content based censorship
the censored version of the list would be readable because all the
flaming and spam would have been cut, as it is all it offers is a
good statistical picture of who is in favour with the list fuhrer and
his pawns.
> > 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.
>
> I notice that the sandfart has been challenging his enemies to create
> an alternative mailing list. I wonder what their contingency plan is.
> Without a doubt, such a competing list would be mailbombed and flooded
> with garbage by Gilmore and his entourage. What else?
Presumably a number of mailing list chains would be set up to bounce
the "flamers", that is people not members of the cypherpunks "in
crowd" submissions to the new lists.
> > 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).
>
> The sandfart has proven me right already. As I said, I think we're
> paying too much attention to him and his censorship, and he's just
> a front for Gilmore anyway.
Hmm, anyway, once again if anyone on this list has the resources to
set up a new uncensored list I ask them to do so as soon as possible,
this list is hardly worth the time it takes to read it now. Anyone
who had anything worthwhile to say is so disgusted with the
censorship they are either tied up in a thread like this criticising
it or have chosen not to post at all.
Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security
Paul Bradley, [email protected]
[email protected], [email protected]
Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1
"Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"