Depends / Re: Senate spams

[Toto <toto@sk.sympatico.ca>]

Greg Broiles wrote:
> 
> At 01:26 AM 2/28/97 -0600, snow wrote:
> >> At 01:41 AM 2/27/97 -0800, Toto wrote:
> >> > I didn't see a single post on CypherPunks where anyone expressed the
> >> >least problem with pure, unmitigated spam being deleted.
> > Greg Broiles wrote:
> >> My point precisely. The question is not "is it useful to eliminate some
> >> messages from the list?", but "which messages shall we eliminate?".
> >
> >       This is mis-direction, and I believe it is deliberate on Boiles
> >part.
> >
> >       The question isn't "which messages shall we eliminate"--which implies
> >that the original writer was seeking to silence _someone_,  but rather
> >given that there are [many some a-few] messages being sent to this list that
> >are sent by non-human entities (bots, auto-replies, bounces etc.) is there
> >a way to avoid propigating them.
> 
> Will you count Raph's remailer statistics as "machine generated" and
> exclude them, too?

  Only asinine, dip-shit numbskulls would be capable of making this
idiotic
extrapolation.
  Why am I not surprised it came from Greg?

> Many/most of the "spam" messages are sent to the list because someone
> (either the author, or a third party) wanted them to be sent to the list.
> The fact that one or more machines are used to carry out that person's
> wishes is irrelevant. We're not talking about the effects of alpha
> particles or honest mistakes, we're talking about a deliberate choice to
> send some content to the list.

  More DoubleSpeak transposing the issues of Spam and content.

> And we're apparently talking about other
> people choosing to override that choice to send content to the list, on the
> basis of dislike for the sender, the sender's purpose, or the content of
> the message.

  No we're not, Greg. _You_ seem to be the only one speaking of
censorship
based on personality, agendas and content. (Try to keep in mind that the
thoughts and words of others are no longer being censored by your 
associates.)

>  And, like Toto said, there's nobody left who's arguing (modulo the
> Freedom-Knights guy, whose name escapes me at the moment, who may not
> really be on the list, haven't seen anything from him in a week or so)
> against all censorship, just people arguing against censorship that they
> don't like or done by people they don't trust, but in favor of censorship
> they do like, or done by people they do trust.

  Toto is calling Greg a lying fuck who deliberately disseminates 
misinformation as to the stances taken by others. 
  Greg seem to have taken it upon himself to provide a misinterpretation
of the posts of others, even though those posts are available for people
to read for themselves, making their own judgements as to what they say.

  I have maintained from the beginning that there needs to be a
CypherPunks
list which is free from filtering in any way, shape or form.
  I have also maintained that the interests of crypto would also be
served
by the maintenance of lists which offer filtering services by those who
wish to provide them--even a CypherPunks-NoToto list.
  Anyone who read my post to Igor, suggesting that I would have no
problem
with him intercepting autobot-replies that result from mailbomb attacks,
also knows that I suggested even the empty spam-messages being deleted
should be stored where they are open to scrutiny, and that I, for one,
would indeed be scrutinizing them.

  For Greg to purport that the interception of mail-bomb attacks equates
somehow to content/personality censorship is unmitigated bullshit aimed
at the dim-witted (of which I believe there are very few of on any of
the CypherPunks lists).
  If Greg would like to put forth a logical train of thought which
compares
the interception of empty auto-bot messages generated in response to the
forged posts of a mailbomb attack with Sandy's fascist censorship
methods
(which Greg eloquently described, but misdirected their source), then I
would like to see it.

> I don't see anything morally wrong with deliberately altering the flow of
> messages to and through the list, but I think it's bad form to pretend not
> to be doing that.

  Who is doing this, Greg? Name names. Give us an example of who is
doing
this and pretending not to do it. Why are your claims so vague? 
 
-- 
Toto
-----------------------------
"The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre"
http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html