From: anonymous@extropia.wimsey.com
Date: Mon, 16 May 94 00:26:52 PDT
To: talk.politics.guns.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
Subject: [ANON] War in rec.guns
Message-ID: <199405160653.AA19402@xtropia>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


[[Reply-To: john.nieder@tigerteam.org]]

 -=> Quoting Dputzolu@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu to John Nieder <=-

 [Nieder to "Magnum"]
 >You also, I note, have not been passing on numerous other dissenting
 >messages of which I have received Cc:s.
 
 >This is an excellent way to engineer the illusion of common consent,
 >however dishonestly.  I congratulate you.  Unfortunately, you do not
 >have control of the other lists and newsgroups on which I plan to
 >discuss this issue and your personal handling of it.

 Dp> Whoa there! This is a very serious accusation here (IMHO). While I
 Dp> tend to agree with many of the points you make about the subject of
 Dp> anonymity, I can understand forwarding this particular posting
 Dp> by the moderator via email instead of posting it to rec.guns,
 Dp> based on his "kinder, gentler" newsgroup policy. It is my impression
 Dp> that the moderator tends to try to keep flameage on rec.guns to a
 Dp> minimum, and your post was quite loaded in that regard.

I agree with the point, and believe it or not I much prefer to have
things pleasant about me, but when people do ignorant things
like banning remailer use (or guns, or encryption...) without any good
reason and insult the motives and character of those who use them, it's
only reasonable to expect offended parties to yell and cuss.

I mean, think about it:  Would you be polite to Charles Schumer?

 Dp> However, you have made quite an accusation. I did see at least
 Dp> a few posts arguing the pro-anon side (including mine).

Look again and see if you got to see Martin Greifer's post or one from a
guy named Vetleson (sp?).  Greifer's was angry (he was the main objector
to the anti-anon policy on ca-firearms who got me radicalized on the
issue), but made the valid if - damned obvious - charge that nobody
disputed a single point I made supporting remailer use, and Vetleson's
explained _why_ he had to use a remailer to get through to the group for
technical reasons.  I didn't see them in the "digest" the moderator
selectively prepared, nor did I see any of the posts that came via
remailers (naturally).  I didn't see any of the short posts of support,
which may not have been considered "worthy" of inclusion either.  The
incoming headers showed that these had also been posted to rec.guns.
The Vetleson post was entered onto a BBS's rec.guns feed, but didn't
show up on the net.  I didn't save any of these personally (I didn't
think I'd have to), but I'll see if I can retrieve them tomorrow from my
main feed, though this is probably not possible, as it only saves the
last x-number of messages before overwriting.  I think I have Greifer's
netmail address here somewhere left over from the ca-firearms anon wars,
if you want to check with him.  Don't know Vetleson's, but can find out
[here's Greifer's: martin.greifer@f28.n125.z1.fidonet.org].  Anyway, my
mail ran about 80% pro-anon.

Obviously, he excluded _mine_, and admitted it.

This is exactly what the media does when it wishes to appear "fair" on
an issue - tailor the raw response to support the agenda, with a few
innocuous dissenting remarks to give the illusion of even-handedness.
You'll notice that all anti-anon responses were either butt-kissing
"me-too" posts of moderator adulation, or else completely ignored the
arguments in my post.

 Dp> To put it briefly: "Put up or shut up."

Hey, why don't we apply that idea to these folks who want to ban anon
posts?  If you can raise a _valid_ objection, or can refute my points,
DO IT!...but they _can't_. 

Anyway, check with Greifer if you doubt this.  If the posts I mentioned
showed up in the digest, post them and I'll apologize, but _I_ sure didn't
see them there.  Did you?  Note that the moderator (funny how he doesn't
use his name much - I've never seen it, and that seems pretty anon to me)
has closed the discussion, so I'm sure that he'll say these posts came in
_afterwards_.

Frankly, I think he ought to quit the moderator position, as he's unfit.
He provides no protection on the newsgroup from endless boneheaded and
useless newbie posts about illegal modifications of weaponry, but
somehow he finds time to kill 100% legitimate, non-anonymized posts (as
Vetleson asserted in his case, I think) of valid and useful content
_simply because they come through a remailer_.  Obviously, the guy's got
his priorities fucked up and I don't see where's he's doing the group
much good.  I have mixed emotions about the concept of moderated groups
anyway, particularly ones where the "moderation" is so quirkily
counterproductive.

|%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%|
| <john.nieder@tigerteam.org> * CP2A * PGP Key # E27937 on all servers |
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=|
|"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude |
|   better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in   |
|  peace.  We ask not your counsels or arms.  Crouch down and lick the |
| hands which feed you.  May your chains set lightly upon you, and may |
|posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."  --  Samuel Adams, 1776|
|=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
|BOYCOTT: Pepsico <KFC - Taco Bell - Frito-Lay - Pepsi-Cola> & Gillette|
|%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%|