From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 21:47:14 -0800 (PST)
To: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
Subject: Re: FW: Dr. Vulis is not on cypherpunks any more [RANT]
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.961106091938.3111C-100000@crl.crl.com>
Message-ID: <32817717.4CA6@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > My computer and my access to cypherpunks is not inside of anyone's home.

> Dale is wrong.  All access to Cypherpunks is via toad.com which
> sits in John Gilmore's home.  (The basement office to be exact.)

Wrongo, Mr./Mrs. Argumentum ad Nauseam.
My computer is in fact in MY home, and my access is SOLELY through GTE.

> > Here, John has opened up whatever computer hardware for an
> > essentially public forum...that it is perceived by a very
> > large segment of the subscribers as public...

> And here John has chosen to limit said forum.  It is irrelevant
> how many subscribers perceive the list as public.  It is private.
> Their misperception is in no way binding on John.

Perception is everything.  And I never made a comment about "binding" anything.
Therefore, there is no misunderstanding.

> > Now, don't you think it odd that if people really perceived
> > this forum to be "really private", that they would so strongly
> > object to this ousting, particularly of the person in question,
> > who is not even liked by these objectors?

> a) "Against stupidity, the gods themselve, contend in vain."
>    Some folks just don't have a clue.  Just because they don't
>    understand the nature of John's contribution, does not stop
>    them from yammering.

And the people who agree with you are the only intelligent/clueful people on this list?
Your contention is acknowledged and rejected.

> b) There are those who do understand the private nature of the
>    list, but think that John has made a mistake.  They may
>    certainly try to convince him of the error of his ways without
>    assuming the list is public.

The only fact you've shown to demonstrate that it's private is that John can manage it
"anyway he wants", and/or shut it down at will.  Well, the owners of Denny's can shut
their places down whenever they want to too.  Matter of fact, the whole government can
resign tomorrow and tell you to do it yourself.  Imagine what would happen in the L.A.
metro area if the truck drivers who bring in food decided they didn't want to do so
next week....

> > You can argue until doomsday the "privacy of home" issue,...

> Since it is correct and unasailable, I believe I will.

[snore]

> > If you really agree with the ousting, I don't understand why
> > you're arguing so hard for the "private home" issue; would you
> > want to see a world someday where all Internet communications
> > are "controlled" by "private" individuals at "home"?

> Yes.  That's the way it is now, and I think it works very well.

Works for you.  Which is all you care about.