From: The Deviant <deviant@pooh-corner.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 07:34:59 +0800
To: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Sternlight on C'punks
In-Reply-To: <199607161754.KAA25543@netcom18.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.94.960719051854.2531A-100000@switch.sp.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Tue, 16 Jul 1996, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:

> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 96 10:54:28 -0700
> From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
> To: David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com>
> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com, vznuri@netcom.com
> Subject: Re: Sternlight on C'punks 
> 
> 
> >And another thing. The reason I've not joined this group earlier had
> >nothing to do with "worthy". It was because after discussion a year or so
> >ago, Tim May suggested to me via e-mail that it would just generate a lot
> >of controversy, at a time when people were so polarized that they couldn't
> >hear each other and thus my presence here would serve no useful purpose.  I
> >took Tim's advice and stayed out.
> >
> 
> frankly I think a mailing list that can't tolerate informed
> but  dissenting views such as your own without self-destructing has
> an inherent problem that exists independent of your participation.
> perhaps it is a valuable public service to expose such a flaw. at
> least, that's the hacker spirit. as for TCM recommending you not
> join, I'm disappointed to hear anyone so ostensibly and vocally
> committed to free speech would tell anyone that their presence
> would be "disruptive" or "controversial" and recommend against it.
> 

I'm enclined to agree with you.  It is a bit embarasing for people on one
of the newsgroups that encourages free speach like this one does to ask
someone, basicly, not to speak because they don't agree with our
oppinions.  Personally, I'd like to welcome David to the list.  I'm sure
we need some, well.. out of lack of a better word,  opposing, views. So
far I've seen more flaimbaiting _AT_ him on this list than _BY_ him.

>
> >I thought that by now the more extreme dogmatists among you would have
> >matured, especially given the evidence generated by the real world about
> >how things are and are going if nothing rational and effective is done to
> >stop it. Some of you have met me at Crypto and found I'm not the devil
> >incarnate. Some of you know that we share many (but not all) policy views
> >in common.
> 
> well, I find you to have mellowed yourself after a legendary amount
> of back and forth in cyberspace, although I would still consider
> some of your own views "dogmatic" as you term it.
> 
> >
> >The presenting symptom for my joining now was a copy of a post by an MIT
> >professor I respect to this group, which a colleague sent me. Perhaps I was
> >too hasty in my belief that we can begin to hear each other.
> 
> I personally find your GAK positions superior to those of the
> administration, at least, although that's almost the lowest-common
> denominator litmus test for not starting massive flamewars on the 
> list.
> 
> a suggestion: get a pseudonym! if you only care about debate, you
>

That is a little bit of the "I'm afraid of your oppinion" approach, isn't
it?  Then his pseudonym would probably just wind up with the same
reputation, and people would start comparing him to himself.  Thats more
likely to make a mess thant to solve anything.  He has his views, I have
mine, you have yours.  Learn to live with it.

 --Deviant


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBMe8cYTAJap8fyDMVAQHvrAf/R/YLvNiISulJ+VnNFxKdusmTnnTHMBG3
V5G4HBAZJ7CamOtfeHPmVZH+QtANZBt8//n4B1eW67sNLhoksQp4GRBUgVotBNsS
g3PRNhkG7cIYTN1GOki6hImjvix7NTWG3KpgU1cQXfIDjgFi/9bf/bYGchQLVKpP
4WgjvilI3kWPUcXxhqdponRB9ZBLy7XPTgok/HtENSby2h+oRKL9cUZOjFAuthu2
veYlZ2loju5ovojE0yecYUykCpPiTf6x9AXBBtN4wA2YVMV95s3mzZRbYEeRBkYn
WLcOQ1i1Ut0wM5/Bhge0NnjV9wZrykvr21EiGrh/X9wlzp9wrfxoAA==
=Ht1c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----