Re: Moderation/censorship

[ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home)]

Dale Thorn wrote:
> > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> > > > Dale Thorn wrote:
> > > > > E. Allen Smith wrote:
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > 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.

Oh well, and he did not jump on Dr. Vulis for any posts concerning
the list topic.

> 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.

Well, paranoid people may be more right than "normal" people, so I
do not see the word paranoid as an insult.

> 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.

Mmm, maybe, but I remember saying negative things about some of your
ideas, which I still think were not wrong.

> 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.

This is OK, Dale, if some readers follow the bullies with reputations
instead of doing their own thinking, they are not worthy of your worries.

	- Igor.