From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 23:07:00 -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.3.91.961105091624.9423C-100000@crl.crl.com>
Message-ID: <328029BC.559B@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > A more practical and realistic example might be if Dale was
> > living in an apartment, and Dale's mother walked out to the
> > garage to get into her car, and the next-door neighbor started
> > calling her the most vile and foul things...
> > This is far more realistic than your example, since the
> > immediate neighborhoods where these situations develop are a
> > better model for cypherpunks than the inside of one
> > individual's home...

> I disagree.  This IS inside someone's home--both metaphorically
> and in reality.  John has graciously provided us with a venue for
> our never-ending Cypherpunk salon.  I think my example of an
> inappropriate guest in Dale's mom's livingroom is exactly on
> point.  Just for the record, I would appreciate it if Dale would
> address my hypothetical, just in case other readers find it as
> cogent as do I.

My computer and my access to cypherpunks is not inside of anyone's home.  One could
argue that all speech originates and/or is controlled anywhere, which is not the
point here.  Here, John has opened up whatever computer hardware for an essentially
public forum (I could detail the process of subscribing for you in intimate detail
and with all of its shades of meaning to demonstrate that it is perceived by a very
large segment of the subscribers as public), and has taken action to oust someone.

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?

You can argue until doomsday the "privacy of home" issue, but I'd suggest to you that
a possible way to settle this in the minds of that large segment of participants who
disagree with you would be for John to make it more visibly clear on this forum that
the forum is his private child, and he can do whatever he darn well pleases with it.
Of course, what you're suggesting (subtly) is that one of the things John can darn
well do is keep silent, and continue to do as he pleases, which makes me wonder
about you.  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"?
If you think about that for awhile, you'll at least understand what I'm getting at.