From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 1996 00:39:03 -0800 (PST)
To: Blanc Weber <blancw@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: Silence is not assent (re the Vulis nonsense)
In-Reply-To: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-81-MSG-961206002012Z-6641@INET-05-IMC.itg.microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <32A7DB2D.6B3F@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Blanc Weber wrote:
> From:   Dale Thorn
> >... I believe that my idea above [asking John Gilmore to speak up,
> >and if he doesn't, say to the list that he has declined to do so] is
> >still a great idea (if the subscribers are not afraid of confrontation),
> >as it would tend to force the issue more into the open.

> I don't know what you mean by "forcing the issue more into the open".
> Do you mean the issue of John' s not replying, or of censorship per se?

It's very simple, really.  Don't *anyone* speak for John, since John
exercised his *right* to expel someone, surely only John himself knows
the real reason(s), and anyone else's explanation is going to sound
hollow and unconvincing.  Doesn't anyone get the point?  John took the
action, you didn't, so either he explains or he doesn't, but I don't
think other people trying to explain for him accomplishes anything
except creating more bad feelings on the list.

> If you mean "forcing the issue of John not defending himself on the
> list", I don't see where the issue needs to be forced.

No, I didn't mean that.  We've seen enough of that already.

[snip]

> I (and apparently many others) do not feel the need to discuss John's
> decisions.  I, and others, are not bound, like geese flying in
> formation, to follow his lead, nor are we going to fall apart at a loss
> for direction if he fails to "show up".

Sounds good to me.  I don't try to keep track of who says what over a
period of time, which makes it easier to forget unpleasantness after
it settles down, even if other people don't forget my unpleasant moods
when I wish they would.

> >You mention what "others had overlooked".  How about this: Tim May sent
> >a message the other day stating (in essence) that the whole "censorship"
> >thing was pretty much a size (rather than content) problem.  I posted
> >that notion twice, and there has been *no* discussion of it, as far as
> >I know.  Too bad Tim didn't post that at the beginning of the affair,
> >since everyone apparently reads *his* mail.

> What I meant by what "others had overlooked" was in regard of the
> content of posted messages which I have read, not in regard of *which*
> poster's messages are overlooked/not read by others.
> Tim can have whatever opinion he likes about censorship or size or
> content, and none of us are under any obligation to either agree or
> disagree with him.

[snip]

Maybe I shouldn't admit this openly, then, but I thought that admission
from Tim was quite significant, given both the physical limitations of
the processing hardware and phone lines, and Tim's apparent influence
with c-punks people, including (I would certainly guess) John Gilmore.

> > >Frankly, most of the long-time members of the list would not need any
> > >such statements of defense from John in order to appreciate the nature
> > >of the circumstance and the reasoning for his symbolic 'censorship'.

> >I apologize in advance for this one, but I honestly think that
> >statement says more about acceptance of the Iron Boot principle than
> >it says about what really happened. I for one am not an insider in any
> >of the various cliques that surround this list, so perhaps I missed
> >something that would explain it better to me.  I suppose you are
> >referring to an unspoken understanding, but again, and for future
> >reference, you might want to consider the non-long-time members and
> >speak the unspoken, as it were.

> What really happened is that, upon weighing the relative merits of
> John's action vs Vulis' contributions, what John did was seen as more of
> a benefit than a detriment, and this dimmed any arguments which might
> have been raised against it.   It's not like everyone was clammoring for
> the privilege of reading what Vulis had to say or there aren't any other
> avenues to getting his literary works.

Convenience and practicality are certainly compelling, but...

> The "unspoken" understanding on the list is that it was started by a
> couple of guys who happen to be very libertarian/cryptoanarchist in
> their philosophy of life (not simply as it applies to cryptography, but
> rather as cryptography relates to that philosophy).  I put "unspoken" in
> quotes because there have been no end of discussion and comments and
> replies and retorts and flames on this very subject in the past years
> since I've been on the list (Oct '93, and it is actually what attracted
> me to subscribing), so it has hardly gone unmentioned and to many is no
> surprise, although is often difficult to for them to see or agree with.
> I recommend that you go through the archives and do a little light
> reading.  Your mind will soon be saturated with the flavor of the
> underlying theme, and you will Understand.

Oh, I *do* understand.  I think personal privacy is sacred, even for
underage people who are frequently robbed of it unfairly by older people
and by bullies.  That's only one of the reasons I found the "Crypto
Anarchy and Virtual Communities" paper so interesting.

If you could analogize the list to a human society, then you might
understand that a pattern of decadence can set in here as it does in
the more visible society, as is run from Washington DC, etc.

It is my hope to make a contribution here (as in the more visible society)
to fight off some of that decadence, even when I get beat up on for it.