From: Jeff Barber <jeffb@sware.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 1995 19:42:53 +0800
To: vznuri@netcom.com (Vladimir Z. Nuri)
Subject: Re: another anonymous poster helping to destroy our rights
In-Reply-To: <199512272022.MAA25782@netcom17.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199512272229.RAA02161@jafar.sware.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Vladimir Z. Not-Detweiler writes:

> >As Tim May has explained over and over again, "the cypherpunks" do not
> >exist.  Cypherpunks is a mailing list, not a society or club.
> >"The cypherpunks" as a group can do nothing about what gets posted to
> >this list except comment on it.
> 
> there are various myths here that ought to be addressed. 
> 
> - if the cypherpunks are not really a group, then people wouldn't get
> upset what goes under the cypherpunk name. but in fact people flame
> hotly what others think is or is not a "legitimate" cypherpunk tactic
> or project or whatever.

And flame hotly is the full extent of what can be done by "the cypherpunks".

The point I'm making is that "the cypherpunks" can't do anything about
anonymous posters or other such "problems".  It's pretty pointless to
ask the list how long "we" will "put up with" postings made by an anonymous
person.  There's nothing I nor any other J. Random Cypherpunk can do about
it, even if I/we wanted to (which I, at least, do not).  This is not at
all the same issue as whether a given post is on-topic or whether a
given opinion is cypherpunk-correct (not that there's much I can do
about those things either).

In any case, the only time most folks on this list get "upset" is
when someone on the list tries to say or imply that they represent
"the cypherpunks" or "the cypherpunk point of view".  Of course he/she
is free to do so anyway, but should expect to get "flamed hotly" if
someone disagrees.

[ Rest of rant also beside the point ]


-- Jeff