1996-12-05 - Re: Silence is not assent (re the Vulis nonsense)

Header Data

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 0d63a0cbfff2310bb749f62012a076616fa89aa0ee83d2d9095addc926338fac
Message ID: <32A6498D.6010@gte.net>
Reply To: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-81-MSG-961204214721Z-812@INET-03-IMC.itg.microsoft.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-12-05 04:07:38 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 20:07:38 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 20:07:38 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Silence is not assent (re the Vulis nonsense)
In-Reply-To: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-81-MSG-961204214721Z-812@INET-03-IMC.itg.microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <32A6498D.6010@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Blanc Weber wrote:
> From:   Dale Thorn (in reply to Tim May)
> If you, Sandy, and the other offenders *really* want to keep the noise
> down, then next time ask John directly for a reply, and if none is
> forthcoming, say to the list *once*, "John will not answer up", etc.,
> and let the subscribers draw their own conclusions from the silence,
> instead of from your inane "defenses".

> As for myself, I was not speaking for Gilmore nor defending him when I
> added my reply to the discussion.   I brought up an item which others
> had overlooked (the fact that Vulis had challenged John to censor him)
> as specific reference to include in their judgement of his actions, as
> well as illustrating how Vulis had invested a lot of effort in
> motivating someone into just such a response.


Thanks for a curteous reply.  I believe that my idea above is still a
great idea (if the subscribers are not afraid of confrontation), as it
would tend to force the issue more into the open.

You mention what "others had overlooked".  How about this: Tim May sent
a message the other day stating (in essence) that the whole "censorship"
thing was pretty much a size (rather than content) problem.  I posted
that notion twice, and there has been *no* discussion of it, as far as
I know.  Too bad Tim didn't post that at the beginning of the affair,
since everyone apparently reads *his* mail.

> So I (and others as well) were addressing the *ideas* of censorship &
> the actions of private property owners, arguing in regard of a more
> precise & correct understanding of the principles involved,  as
> exemplified by John's actions  -  but not in place of his own
> "self-defense" of them.

Can I speculate here?  The nature of the list, as pertains to messaging,
is fairly quick response for most postings.  I'm sure you realize that
that raises the emotional content quite a bit, as would be lessened if
people typed out their responses and then sat on them (and reviewed them)
for a day or so before re-posting. I have no problem with *any* discussion
that any subscriber feels necessary, but frankly, when I add it all up,
the pro-Gilmore faction went way overboard restating ad nauseam to the
effect that "John can do whatever he wants, and y'all can take a hike".

> Frankly, most of the long-time members of the list would not need any
> such statements of defense from John in order to appreciate the nature
> of the circumstance and the reasoning for his symbolic 'censorship'.

I apologize in advance for this one, but I honestly think that statement
says more about acceptance of the Iron Boot principle than it says about
what really happened.  I for one am not an insider in any of the various
cliques that surround this list, so perhaps I missed something that would
explain it better to me.  I suppose you are referring to an unspoken
understanding, but again, and for future reference, you might want to
consider the non-long-time members and speak the unspoken, as it were.