1997-02-17 - Re: The Offending Stronghold posts…

Header Data

From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>
To: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Message Hash: b5a42abdb8e05141ff3c73efc9ca25801411da839172d54b1fa1bd563af5627c
Message ID: <1.5.4.32.19970217134942.006fa6d4@pop.pipeline.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-02-17 13:56:04 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 05:56:04 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 05:56:04 -0800 (PST)
To: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: The Offending Stronghold posts...
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970217134942.006fa6d4@pop.pipeline.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Here're wee additions to your archive:

I subbed to cp-unedited from the first, so could compare the unedited 
messages with the edited. Some of mine(*) were edited, including a few
on the Stronghold topic. But to me that's not as big a deal as some want
to make of it.

For example, in response to Tim's request to repost DV's Stronghold ploy, 
I did so, and it was edited. Sandy sent me a courteous email stating that he 
was not forwarding the message. I answered that that was okay with me 
because I thought that DV was using the issue as a ploy to undermine 
Sandy. Hey, there were no legal or other threats made to me, darn it!

Another of my edited messages stated that there had been good discussion
on the unedited list about DV's Denial of Service attack on Cypherpunks.

Another noted that DV had been admirably successful in drawing others into
his fight -- in support and in opposition -- as part of his DoS.

Another questioned "Who's Censoring Who?" and offered the opinion that 
"censorship" rhetorically exaggerated Sandy's moderation. (I still believe 
that's the case.)

For what it's worth, I oppose moderation, but favor experimentation, in
the recognition that humans are near-endlessly adaptable and near-
uncontrollable no matter what control mechanisms are employed -- anarchy
is the norm whether advocated or not.

So, I think the moderation experiment was a success, in that it has led to an 
unexpectedly constructive reconfiguration of Cypherpunks -- and not the last, 
that's for sure -- and showed that any archy is wishful dreaming of tortured
hearts and minds and loins.

A one hand applause to Dr. V and archy-demolishers for vibrating the c'punks
house the way SATAN did bigger shoddy piles. Two hands to TCM for more 
memorable quaking of structure-bunkered c'punks and others.

-----

* I'll supply copies of messages cited if you like.






Thread