1997-01-11 - Re: A vote of confidence for Sandy

Header Data

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 475422005e17604e2135577dc3a17c98714b82484583b358601ff60288c4d585
Message ID: <32D7CFAC.38D0@gte.net>
Reply To: <v03007806aefcde0a5a6a@[205.186.122.248]>
UTC Datetime: 1997-01-11 18:51:47 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 10:51:47 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 10:51:47 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: A vote of confidence for Sandy
In-Reply-To: <v03007806aefcde0a5a6a@[205.186.122.248]>
Message-ID: <32D7CFAC.38D0@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Bill Frantz wrote:
> At 8:19 PM -0800 1/10/97, Lucky Green wrote:[snippo]
> Let me rant a bit about the "ideal" moderation structure.  Igor Chudov's
> software lets people like Matt Blase and Bruce Schneier post whatever they
> want.  (I would add people like Black Unicorn as well.  YMMV)  Other posts
> go into a pool accessible to all moderators.  If one moderator approves,
> the message goes out.  If N reject, it is rejected.  These rejections could
> either be anonymous or be included in an x-moderators-rejecting: header for
> the "worst of cypherpunks" list.

Let me guess.  Frantz started with electronic copies of Mein Kampf,
1984 (originally 1948), Brave New World, and Animal Farm, and did some
judicious substitutions:

Substitute "moderator" for "censor".
Substitute "pool" for "concentration camp".
Substitute "reject" for "liquidate".

And, they could do this anonymously, like the Gestapo, SS, LAPD, FBI,
CIA, FEMA, BATF, you get the picture.







Thread