From: "Attila T. Hun" <attila@primenet.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 23:49:50 -0800 (PST)
To: Toto <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
In-Reply-To: <199701260712.XAA10405@toad.com>
Message-ID: <199701260749.AAA25243@infowest.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In <199701260712.XAA10405@toad.com>, on 01/25/97 
   at 11:03 PM, Toto <toto@sk.sympatico.ca> said:

+  I fail to see how any supposedly intelligent members of the 
+CypherPunks list can possibly be content to fall for the line,
+  "Bend over, baby. I'm only going to moderate you 'a little bit'."

    attila sez:

        no matter if one perceives the "need" for a moderator or not, I  
    find it hard to accept --even to eliminate the grossly obscene 
    attacks by a few members against other members. I wonder if we need 
    a 'childish' excluder? 

        I question how Sandy can accept the job as moderator, passing 
    judgement on 100-300 messages per day.  just trimming spam is 
    questionable: what is spam?  flames: what draws the line at flames: 

            personal attacks? 
            profanity? 
            politically [in]correct speach?  
            historical revisionism? 

        and, I think cypherpunks is setting an atrocious example of our 
    own narrow mindedness (creditable or not) when we sanction any 
    filtering of what we see --is this not **exactly** what we accuse 
    the controlled media of determining what is "fit to print?"

        unfortunately, we are demonstrating to our critics that 

        a)  net anarchy does not work
        b)  cyberlibertarianism breeds anarchy
        c)  we're loose cannons on the deck
        d)  we are not civilized enough to warrant respect

    and this can go on and on and on...  But, the minute we, as a group, 
    start to tell other members of the group to 'clean up your act' we 
    are violating the principal "ethic" which we claim: freedom.

        sure, we can claim we are entitled to total libertarianism, or 
    anarchy; but there is a responsibility to create a workable, 
    cooperative social order, if for no other reason than protecting us 
    in the wilderness, or feeding us, or clothing us.  anyone here wish 
    to return to survivalist modes of a head of household 200 years ago?

        we can have pure communism, the LDS Brotherhood, the Shaker 
    house, or even true anarchy where you may do anything you wish as 
    long as it does not infringe on the rights or property of another.
 
        --catch22: just how do set the laws on limits, and how do you 
    enforce the limits if you have voted to dissolve all 'government' 
    and 'police?'  

            when basic human ambition to better oneself 
            is literally killed...

        good luck, Sandy;  make sure you pull a sanity check everyday 
    when you start and finish the onerous task!

  ==
  "you may not be next,
    you may not be last,
      but you are too late to have been first.  
            --attila


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: latin1
Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later.

iQCVAwUBMusMbr04kQrCC2kFAQFXYgP/aK2vEs0skEaYNbwWiDXS+GcYKIRJ52/c
y87akjVm/d1U+LDheHN0cvFxHiMCNRCIJKKa7hHNr3AYDXzJtehthP/pi+L5NPTD
kYY58tUFy0p/t0hN4vze4i0wnxkymAVCnIVNkfGyAGwXytCxCmPUCHcV5ZzlYcI+
jrXv2nuBsos=
=ZTbB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----