Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list

[OKSAS <oksas@asimov.montclair.edu>]

On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Sandy Sandfort wrote:

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>                           SANDY SANDFORT
>  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> 
> C'punks,
> 
> On Mon, 27 Jan 1997 paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote:
> 
> > The list has been disentigrating for some time since the disgusting 
> > incident when Dimitri was forcibly unsubscribed from the list. 
> 
> I'm curious about the gratuitous use of the word "forcibly" by
> Paul.  Does this mean Gilmore took a fire axe to the computer or
> something?  Dimitri was unsubscribed.  It was done more or less
> against his will.  ("More or less" because he in effect said to
> John, "bet you can't stop me.")  What does "forcibly" add to this
> discussion besides melodrama?  No force was required.  John had
> the right and ability to pull the plug on Dimitri.  "No animals
> were harmed in the making of this film."  "Force," my ass.
> 
	You are disgusting cindy.

> > have also been a number of postings from members of the list claiming 
> > to understand anarchism who support censorship to "protect new 
> > members of the list".
> 
> There are various definitions of "censorship" and various flavors
> of anarchism.  I'm a market anarchist, Paul is not.  Paul claims
> to believe that any form of moderation is censorship.  I think
> that enforcing standards of decorum on a private, voluntary list
> are not censorship.  Reasonable minds may differ.  I acknowledge 

	Yes REASONABLE minds do differ from yours...

> that Paul's interpretations are not without some justification.
> (I just think they are incorrect in the instant case.)  Paul, on
> the other hand, seems to be a True Believer.  He brooks no view
> other than his own.  (Curiously hypocritical under the 
> circumstrances.)
>  
> > So, there would be no intellectual dishonesty in a country claiming 
> > to be a free and open society "trying out" fascism for a month or 
> > two? - After all it`s a private country just as this is a private 
> > list....
> 
> Paul's sophistry is showing.  Nation-states are entities that
> exercise a monopoly on the use of force (real force, Paul)
> within (and often without) their boundries.  Mail lists are far
> more like private homes, businesses or clubs.  When you are a
> guest there, you are subject to their rules of behavior.

	If it is so private, why does deja news have it
	when 'mail.cypherpunks' is searched???
	
> > There is a clear trend easily observable on the list whereby certain 
> > members postings are censored when their content is of a standard 
> > that, if the moderation were objective and based on content alone, 
> > would warrant their being sent to the censored list.
> 
> Several substantive examples, please.  True, nothing Bill Stewart
> has posted has been sent to CP-Flames.  One guess why.  Numerous
> posts by Dimitri have been posted to CP-Moderated, but many more
> have not made the cut.  There are much more obvious reasons for
> this than Paul's biased analysis.
>  
> > I can tell you one other thing for sure, even if the moderation 
> > "experiment" were to end in a month as a last ditch attempt by John 
> > Gilmore and Sandy Sandfort to recover some of their lost credibility 
> > it would be a vain and entirely unsuccesful attempt.
> 
> YMMV.
> 
> 
>  S a n d y
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> 
> 
>