From: Alex Strasheim <cp@proust.suba.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 96 13:25:30 PST
To: mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos)
Subject: Re: [NOISE] Re: COMMUNITY CONNEXION...
In-Reply-To: <199601141945.LAA11478@netcom2.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199601142126.PAA08538@proust.suba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


> > Sounds like you're a little weak on your history, Attila. Not that I
> > agree with the SWC's policies one bit, but some basic dates and facts -
> > when SW was born, when he founded his C, when WW2 was, what the Nazis did
> > during it and what the SWC has done since, when and how the anti-Nazi and
> > hate speech laws were passed in Germany, whether "any" speech or revision
> > against the SWC's agenda (or do you just mean "JEWS"?), etc - would make
> > pretty short work of your nonsense.

[...]

> Is there some special reason you had to post this little history
> lesson anonymously?

Aha, at last some cypherpunk relevance. Would the post have been ok if it
had been signed? 

Anonymity isn't the issue, content is.  No one needs a reason or special
justification for anonymity -- we're entitled to it.  But we're also 
entitled to ignore people we don't want to communicate with, including 
anonymous people.

This is Eric's list, and he's entitled to make a rule that anonymous posts
aren't allowed, but he hasn't done so -- anonymous posts are ok.  If we
don't like Eric's rules, we're entitled to set up another list with
different rules on another server and post there.  And of course if you
don't like anonymous posts, you're entitled to skip them. 

Banning anonymity doesn't give you any protection at all from off topic
posts.  Check the archives if you don't believe me.