1993-02-19 - LIST RULES

Header Data

From: ssandfort@attmail.com
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 0e67d0bff4f15502c4744c32b86416d73cd591e4c1fc2ccf07b5e6c89d7e19b5
Message ID: <9302190553.AA16486@cygnus.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1993-02-19 15:10:51 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 07:10:51 PST

Raw message

From: ssandfort@attmail.com
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 07:10:51 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: LIST RULES
Message-ID: <9302190553.AA16486@cygnus.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


_________________________________________________________________
             FROM THE VIRTUAL DESK OF SANDY SANDFORT
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In a recent post, John Gilmore wrote:

    "Keith, Kenneth . . . I am uninterested in censorship of
    discussion of *any* topic on mailing lists through my
    machine . . .  the machine is attached via a worldwide
    network that explicitly promises not to censor any
    traffic UNLESS AND UNTIL a court of law --not you -- has
    decided that that traffic is actually illegal."

Because I agree COMPLETELY with what John wrote, I'm somewhat
miffed at him for his seeming lack of constituency.  Recently, I
posted a notice on this list about a software business contact I
have in South East Asia.  John sent me a terse note asking me not
to "advertise" on the list.

I was a bit surprised at his response for several reasons.
First, a founding Cypherpunk regular, Tim May, suggested I post
my question the list when I asked him if he knew anyone working
on recreational software.  Second, I have had several polite
enquiries from list members who where interested in what I
posted.  Finally, nobody else was offended enough to complain.

I sent a respectful note to John asking him, among other things,
if I had violated some prohibition of which I was unaware.
John's response was:

    "Please consider this message a prohibition against
    advertising.  Apparently nobody else on the list needed
    to hear it, except you, since you are the first person
    to abuse the list in this way."

Now I fully agree that it's John's ball, and I will play by his
rules, but I find it hard to reconcile John's public tolerance
with his private prohibition.  Does ANYONE else feel abused?  I
hope not.  What do others on this list think about "commercial"
postings?

I will not "advertise" on the list as long as John prohibits it.
But I sincerely hope his prohibition does not discourage others
from discussing the issues it raises.  I would like to hear what
the rest of you think.

     S a n d y                         ssandfort@attmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~






Thread