Cocksucker Gilmore's Big Adventure

[mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos)]

John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com> writes:

 > Sandy hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr.
 > Nemesis submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous
 > statements about Sandy's employer.  He never anticipated
 > that he wouldn't be able to follow his announced "post it to
 > one list or the other" policy because to do so would make
 > him legally liable (in his opinion; he's a lawyer, I'm not).
 > His gears jammed, and the whole machine came to a halt for a
 > few days.

A person who has a fiduciary responsiblity to act in the best
interests of some corporate entity should not be moderating a
mailing list where said entity and its various products might be
discussed.

This is called "conflict of interest." Your eagerness to leap
into moderated mode by fiat would better have been preceeded by
one or two clues.  But then, if you were a particularly clueful
person, you would not have made a fool of yourself by forcibly
unsuscriving Dr. Vulis in the first place, and precipitating the
chain of events that resulted in the current meltdown.

 > Sandy has agreed to continue moderation through the end of the
 > original 1-month experiment (through Feb 19).  And it's a good
 > thing, too, because the "cypherpunks community" had better get
 > off its whining butt in the next ten days, or it will no longer
 > exist.

Ten days notice to relocate a high volume mailing list is
insufficient.  This is yet another ultimatum by a whining coward
who does not yet realize he is in a battle he is not going to win
by escalation of reciprocal pissing.

 > I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to host the
 > cypherpunks list any more.

And we've all come to the conclusion that you are a flaming prat
prone to irate temper tantrums.  Big surprise.

You know, I've always been a big non-fan of John Gilmore.  I know
you're the co-founder of the EFF and the alt Usenet hierarchy,
and a well-known and respected mouthpiece on the topics of
communications policy, censorship, privacy, and free speech in
certain circles.

But almost every single piece of private communication I've seen
from you has given me the impression that you are an arrogant
self-centered nasty little excuse for a man, unwilling to listen
to any opinion that doesn't agree with your own, and quite
willing to heap any amount of ridicule and derision on
dissenters, while trying at the same time to blame them for your
behavior.

In short, a person I would avoid like the plague in real life,
and tolerate only rarely through the insulation of an IP
connection.

 > A large fraction of the list seems to think that "freedom
 > of speech" means that everyone is required to listen to
 > everyone else at all times.  That there can't be focused,
 > topical conversations in a society that has freedom of
 > speech.

Speak for yourself, John.  You obviously have no idea what or who
"Cypherpunks" are, and you are the last person on the face of the
earth who should be making proclamations about what "a large
fraction of the list" thinks.

 > There also seems to be a misunderstanding that freedom of
 > speech requires that people who want to speak already have a
 > place, set up and maintained by someone else, for them to
 > speak in.  If someone who's set up a speech-place decides it
 > isn't being used for its intended purpose, then they are a
 > censor, stopping all possibility of conversations.

There is a fundamental difference between choosing not to provide
a forum for someone to speak in, and in providing a forum for a
long period of time and then deciding one day to kick the podium
out from under the speaker in mid-sentence, or to edit the
speakers comments before distributing them.

 > Either you list denizens will, among yourselves, put in the
 > energy to build a new home for the list (and run it in
 > whatever way your volunteers want) by Feb 20, or the list
 > will cease to exist on Feb 20.

Gilmore the little dictator speaks again.

 > Sandy reports that he's changing his criteria for
 > moderation for the remainder of the experiment.  It was his
 > idea, and I approve.  The criteria now are:

Another sudden change in the topic of the list by fiat with no
discussion possible.  You should be ashamed of yourself for even
attaching the name "Cypherpunks" to this travesty of yours.  Why
not change the name to GilmorePunks, CocksuckerPunks, ToadyPunks,
or something more descriptive?

 > For me it's a sad thing that the community's willingness to
 > pull together has degenerated to the point where I feel
 > better off separating from the list.  I hope that others in
 > the community will create one or several alternatives that
 > work better.

Piffle.

 > John ["Cocksucker"] Gilmore

Your reputation capital is into the negative numbers now.

--
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $