From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 10:45:45 +0800
To: lmccarth@cs.umass.edu
Subject: Re: Tim's paranoid rant about Declan appearing on "Europe's Most Wanted"
In-Reply-To: <gl4A=xu00YUr41Pol2@andrew.cmu.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.ULT.3.91.960201172626.11796h-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Thu, 1 Feb 1996, Declan B. McCullagh wrote:

> Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 1-Feb-96 Tim's paranoid rant about
> D.. by Just Rich@c2.org 
> > I disagree. It is clear to me that there is absolutely no cloud hanging 
> > over us. If any German court tried to press charges against me for 
> > posting Zendel's materials, they'd be laughed across the Argonne. Most 
> > mainstream Jewish groups *love* me right now.
> >  
> > I find it curious, and I am beginning to get a little annoyed, that my
> > name is rarely mentioned, though I set up the first mirror, and Declan got
> > the files from me. 
> 
> So you're getting pissy that you're not The Only Zundel Mirror. Big
> fucking deal. Get over it. The more the better.
> 
> I find it telling that you wrote me mail demanding that I alter my web
> pages to your satisfaction or you'll smear me in the press, since your
> web site (you informed me) is going to be featured in the next issue of
> TIME, Internet World, and the San Francisco Chronicle.
> 
> Hey, guy, kudos to you. Glad to hear it. Smear the fuck away.

This does not accurately represent what I said, and it certainly does not 
represent what I have done. You are still identified as "My friend 
Declan," and I recommend that people visit your site.

I actually would have appreciated it if you had crowed, or at least 
shared, your media contacts. For example, I only just now found out about 
Steve Pizzo's poorly researched article in Web Review, where he presents 
as my views deliberate lies that I told Zundel in order to get his 
cooperation and trust.

> > I am very annoyed that Declan has not responded to repeated requests to
> > remove the cleartext "Stanford University" from the parts of his Web site
> > that mention me. Of course the stanford.edu, or at least net 36.190, will
> > remain in the URL, but there is no reason that the link text could not say
> > "Rich Graves' mirror." First Declan sent me mail saying he would respect
> > my wishes, but he didn't.
> 
> Let's get the facts right and ignore Rich's distortions. I wrote:
> 
>     "I'll honor your wishes and take your full name off."
> 
> I did *not* write that I'd take Stanford's name off the pages. I did
> take your full name off, as I said I would.

This does not accurately reflect your mail. At this time, you have not
removed my full name, either. 
 
> >  Then a friend of mine reminded Declan of my
> > request, and Declan responded with abuse. 
> 
> Your friend, Haggai Kupermintz, sent me unsolicited email demanding to
> know why I didn't act on a request that was sent earlier that day. I

You will find that Haggai had been Cc'd on several messages back and forth
on fight-censorship, and he was Bcc'd on my original request (at the
header of my message to you was a notice that it was being Bcc'd to other
people at Stanford).  While I don't appreciate his mommying me, I hardly
consider his mail unsolicited or unwarranted, since you have still failed
to honor my request. 

> have better things to do than leap on every demand I get, so I flamed
> him. *shrug* Big deal. I didn't know a rather mild flame was "abuse." If
> you don't want to be "abused," don't send me demands in unsolicited
> email. (I'm glad for the sake of other "abusers" at Stanford that your
> school's speech code was struck down by a California court last year.)

The "speech code" was never applied to anyone, and was widely regarded to 
be unenforceable. I opposed it. It was a joke, yes.

What were we talking about again?
 
> > Declan wants me to believe that this disclaimer is enough:
> >  
> >        "Please note that the
> >        existence of a web site at any particular institution does not
> >        in any way imply endorsement. Universities and businesses
> >        do not take responsibility for what their community members
> >        or customers place online."
> >  
> > This is clearly untrue when the person in question is a staff member, as I
> > am. Were I still a student, then I could more legitimately say that I'm a
> > student at Stanford, and that I have the academic freedom to post whatever
> > I want; but as someone who now merely works for a living at Stanford, I do
> > whatever I want by the (very) good graces of my (very good) employer. 
> 
> I don't follow. In what way is that disclaimer untrue? You *do*
> represent Stanford? The concept of academic freedom doesn't apply to
> staff members? If that's true, you do have a point.

Then you, kadie, and I agree. I have a point. Why do you persist in 
identifying, in two places, a Stanford University Mirror Site?
 
> > One mirror site was enough. The German providers would not have blocked
> > stanford.edu had it remained the only mirror site. The President of
> > Stanford, Gerhard Casper, is a recognized constitutional scholar from
> > Germany. The Stanford Provost, Condoleezza Rice, was one of the two or 
> > three people most responsible for the Bush Administration's policy 
> > towards German Unification. Dozens of Stanford students have studied in 
> > Berlin.
> 
> One mirror site may have had a limited effect, but more mirror sites
> have a more significant effect.

I strongly disagree.

Which has more symbolic power for good, a single man standing in front of
a tank in Tiananmen Square, or nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

It is not ethical to abuse this power we have. Especially because neither 
of us are students at the universities whose machines we are abusing.

> The press likes a local angle, and local mirrors are giving them just
> that. I put a reporter from the Boston Globe in touch with the UMass
> mirror operator, and a reporter from the Philadelphia Inquirer in touch
> with the University of Pennyslvania mirror operator. I'd love to see
> mirrors in every major city for greater coverage in every major paper.
> 
> If you don't understand that concept, you don't understand the way the
> media works.

I do understand the way the media works. They live on "press releases" 
from "recognized authorities." Most 
 
> So Rich, answer me this: "What articulable and demonstrable harm have
> additional mirror sites done, besides hurt your ego?"

Since my mirror site has been limited to .edu and selected other domains 
for a full day, this is an odd question. 

The demonstrable harm, as you now agree, is that the Ottawa Times, 
http://intranet.on.ca/ott_time.html, the Stormfront-L neo-nazi list, and 
so on are full of lies about how universities sympathetic to Zundel's 
fight against Zionist oppression and the Holocaust Lie have jumped to his 
defense.
 
> > This is ludicrous. I expect better from you.
> 
> I'm a big fan of Tim's, and I think that while he may have been jesting,
> his comments have a serious undertone.
> 
> I don't really expect to be locked up for the rest of my life in a
> German cellblock, but harassment at entry/exit points is possible.
> Perhaps probable, given that other "distributors" of Neo-Nazi spew have
> experienced just that.

No distributors. Only point sources. And as has been pointed out, they 
often get off with a slap on the wrist.

You have been duped by Zundel's false claims of persecution. I bet you 
even bought the "Dr. Axl Clocstein" story for a while.
 
> > Declan, if you don't fix up your page the way I want it by morning (please
> > not that you have three more hours of morning than I do), I will post a
> > modified (spell-checked) version of this note on my Web page, to
> > alt.censorship, and to your "fight-censorship" mailing list.
> 
> Please send me in private email (or post it here if you really want)
> exactly what you want me to change.

1. As I've been saying for the last day and a half, please remove all 
occurrences of the strings "Stanford" and "Graves." I hardly think that 
requesting not to be so identified is egotistical.

2. While you're at it, it would be good to remove the following as well, 
which does not accurately reflect the facts.

 In early January, Zundel contacted the Simon Wiesenthal Center and asked
 permission to reproduce some of their materials. He wanted to disprove
 some of their views as he had tried to rebut those of the Nizkor Project.
 (The Nizkor folks earlier had requested bidirectional linking. Zundel
 agreed to their request, heralding the experiment as "The Great Internet
 Holocaust Debate.")

Nizkor's response to this is rather prominent on their Web site.

3. Please fix this:
 
 January 29, 1996: This site goes online, with the help of files supplied
 by Rich (rich@c2.org), supplemented with more recent documents taken
 directly from the Zundelsite. Rich's site at Stanford University goes
 online. (Note that Rich and I mirrored the Zundelsite at our own
 initiative, not by request.)

To bolster Zundel's coyright claim against the National Alliance, please
clarify that "we" specifically requested the materials from Zundel, and
that his handler Marc uploaded them all to "one of our machines" (since we
could not have run a WebWacker on the highly overloaded webcom.com). Also 
remove the string "Stanford." In any case, the files are no longer 
available at Stanford.

4. February 1, 1996: Web Review Magazine reports on the mirror sites.

I have sent mail to Steve Pizzo and requested that he call me to correct 
some false statements attributed to me.

5. February 1, 1996, afternoon: UMass censors mirror. Simon Wiesenthal
   Center sends letters of protest to participating mirror universities.
   Sameer announces University of California at Berkeley mirror. 

Every one of these is false.

a. The operator of the UMass mirror objects to your characterization of 
   what happened as "censorship," and to your posting his private mail.

b. Where is your confirmation of Simon Wiesenthal's action?

c. Sameer has not announced a UC Berkeley mirror. He specifically asked 
   that it not be listed because like most of us, he is beginning to have
   ethical qualms. 

6. On index.html you have:

 There is an apparent campaign of email and web bombing being launched
 againt Zundel's site on Webcom, making it near-impossible to reach. 

Do you have a source for this besides me? Well, I retract the rumor. In
fact it seems that the problem is that Zundel foolishly put a bunch of
huge RealAudio files on his page that are overloading the server.

> Rich, by now I suspect you've seen this joke, but what the hell:
> 
>    Q: What's a left-wing firing squad?
> 
>    A: Everyone stands in a circle and shoots at each other

I guess this is supposed to be something clever about how the vanguard is
supposed to discard their personal interests for the common good. 

I am a member of no vanguard.

-rich