Re: Moderation/censorship

[Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>]

> > Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> > > Dale Thorn wrote:
> > > > E. Allen Smith wrote:
> > > > > There was some discussion from Toto et al (whom I'd guess you'd (sensibly)
> > > > > filtered out) of blocking postings from Senate and House addresses,
> > > > > (If DLVulis was a participant in the discussion (I wouldn't notice,
> > > > > given that I generally delete his messages before reading), he
> > > > > would be a probable exception to the latter part of the last sentence.)
> > > > So here's this Eastern-establishment George Bush wanna-be piece-of-shit
> > > > whiny asshole Smith beating up on Toto and Vulis for the nth time.
> > > remember dale, you and dr. vulis are also beating on john gilmore & co.

> > True, but, Smith viciously attacked me before I said anything about
> > him, and he did so not because I was some kind of authority inter-
> > fering with his life (like a lying, cheating, censoring list mgr.),
> > but simply because he didn't like my posts.

> :) and you are attacking him because you did not like his posts.

Not the same thing at all.  Any posts he may have made about any
list topic (whether "on-topic" or not) I did not jump on him for.
I have made specific comments disagreeing with people about factual
or theoretical particulars, or I've made disparaging comments about
list "leaders" using their "reputation capital" to shove other people
out of their way like bullies, but I haven't taken to calling
ordinary list subscribers names because I think they're paranoid
(which I'm really not, though I'm a "professional" conspiratologist),
or because I otherwise disagree with them.

I looked at one archive the other day, and it contained 850+ messages
by me posted to cypherpunks between approximately 1 Sep 96 and late
Jan 97.  I think you'll find them very consistent, and although I
could be accused of harboring my own arrogance in some areas, I can
handle any criticism you put forth, since you (for example) don't
slander me gratuitously or viciously.

Several months ago, I made a post where I said that approx. 95% of
people stay within the confines of their parents' religion for life,
meaning that while they may change denominations, or split different
hairs on various dogmas, they still remain Catholic if their parents
were Catholic, etc.  One of the list "leaders" chose to say I didn't
know what I was talking about, even though I very well did know what
I was talking about (and I told him so), so he replied that he didn't
want me putting his email address in any of my posts (i.e., don't
hit the reply-to-all button unless I manually delete his name), and
has steadfastly ignored me ever since.  I don't mind being ignored,
in fact, it gives me time to do better things than argue with persons
who don't really listen, but what pisses me off is this bully-like
arrogance on the part of some of the clique who would really like to
get rid of people like me, but can't recommend it since it would
damage their already fragile reputation.