From: rclark@nyx.cs.du.edu (Robert W. F. Clark)
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 93 20:22:07 PDT
To: extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: WARNING: Pointer article to soc.whistleblowers debate
Message-ID: <9304160323.AA06370@nyx.cs.du.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


The news software has been activated.

David Tale has accepted the article, sans a paragraph specifying
a procedural point (which I didn't think would fly, anyway) and
bagging alt.sex and alt.drugs from the discussion, but keeping
many others; I think if I hadn't put those two in, he might have
knocked out a few I was serious about.

So, in any case, the article, in a modified form, partially by
me and partially by Tale, is now posted to news.announce.newgroups,
and the debate shall begin shortly.

Those of you who consider this newsgroup a beneficial and good
thing, and who wish to discuss its implementation and name
and other germane issues, should immediately go to news.groups
and begin posting like lunatics.

Those of you who consider this newsgroup a menace to society
should go to news.groups and post scathing articles about my
sexual preferences.  (Humor, of course.)

In any case, I have not identified myself as a cypherpunk or,
for that matter, as an Extropian, not having the boundless arrogance
to presume that cypherpunks all share my opinion of the methods of
implementing this; so those of you who do agree with me, or 
disagree only on procedural points, should post your opinion;
people have a larger tendency to vote YES when they think others
agree with them.  Also try to avoid excessively inflammatory
postings (on the order of "You fucking moron, how DARE you
disagree with me."), as these will tend to garner a bunch of NOs.

I don't mean be a total schmuck and bend over backwards for
a flaming, but flame back in a constructive spirit and without
senseless _ad hominem_ attacks.  

I hope that this group can be created with as little
sturm and drang as possible, but if it _does_ require
sturm OR drang OR both, heat may need to be applied.

Again, post whether or not you agree.  And don't send votes
yet, of course.  I'll just junk them, according to net.law.

If the cypherpunks wish to present this as a cypherpunk issue,
or if individuals wish to support it as individuals, feel free.
I'm not going to attach the name 'cypherpunk' to it myself
because, not to be rude, it would further politicize an already
highly-politicized issue.  However, if we'd be more effective
as THE DREADED Extropians/Cypherpunks bloc, which I don't think
is necessarily the case, feel free.  It's not my net.  

Apologies are extended for the lengthy crosspost, but it shall
be the last crosspost; further discussion ought to occur in
news.groups.  And battle plans in cypherpunks, if we even need
battle plans.  With any luck, there won't be a battle.

If we sneak this in by acclamation without a flamewar or
controversy, we're ENTRENCHED.  NOBODY can stop us, or any
other people who could utilize this most valuable resource.

But I'm not holding my breath on that one. 

Although I cross-posted mainly to groups with a large population
of potential YES voters, and ignored, say, news admin hangouts,
those who would oppose this are sure to find out about it; but
I think we can muster sufficient political clout to pass this.

Me?  I'm currently going to enlist some old friends from talk.bizarre. . .

Don't worry, they're not the current crop but the same crowd that
passed comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac.  I'll ask for as little
inflammatory material as possible, like I did here, but I
don't want this to become any more of a flamewar than necessary,
and, again and for the last time, would prefer it didn't end
up that way at all.

End of crosspost.  We now return you to your regular round
of discussing radix sorts and monozygotic recessives.

Thank you. 
----
Robert W. Clark
rclark@nyx.cs.du.edu   PGP signature available by mail or finger