From: Blanc Weber <blancw@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1996 18:47:15 -0800 (PST)
To: "'cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: RE: Silence is not assent (re the Vulis nonsense)
Message-ID: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-81-MSG-961206024657Z-7339@INET-05-IMC.itg.microsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Well, I see that my email came out a bit skewed, so I'm reformatting a
bit and resending to make it more readable:
-----------------------------------------------

From:	Dale Thorn

	... I believe that my idea above [asking John Gilmore to 	speak up, and
if he doesn't, say to the list that he has 
	declined to do so] 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.


I don't know what you mean by "forcing the issue more into the open".
Do you mean the issue of John' s not replying, or of censorship per se?
 

If you mean "forcing the issue of John not defending himself on the
list", I don't see where the issue needs to be forced.   John has rarely
posted to the list since it started, and typically only announcements of
events or crypto papers/conferences, etc.; he does not engage in the
discussions at all.   I personally have no argument with his decision
over when he posts or what he cares to post about, or how much or how
little.   My own interest in the list has nothing to do with whether the
list owner is moved to defend himself or not.   I'm free to roam at
will, read or delete, post or unsubscribe, publicly and loudly or
privately & quietly.   I don't feel constrained in any way, shape or
form to stay or go or speak or stay quiet.   I make all my own decisions
about this and John never knows nor, I expect, suffers any concern over
it.  And vice-versa.   

I (and apparently many others) do not feel the need to discuss John's
decisions.  I, and others, are not bound, like geese flying in
formation, to follow his lead, nor are we going to fall apart at a loss
for direction if he fails to "show up".


	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.


What I meant by what "others had overlooked" was in regard of the
content of posted messages which I have read, not in regard of *which*
poster's messages are overlooked/not read by others.    

Tim can have whatever opinion he likes about censorship or size or
content, and none of us are under any obligation to either agree or
disagree with him.   On a libertarian/anarcho-capitalistic list like
this, the individuals who have elected to join and lurk or post are not
expected to do anything but follow their interest.  There are more than
1200 subscribers to the list; if each and everyone of them had decided
they had something to say to each other about the concept of the rights
of the person whose computer these messages are all flowing through,
that would have been their fortunate privilege to do, as no one has put
any limit to the number of messages allowed, from any one, during any
particular period of time.  (Of course they would all be expecting not
only that their particular message would be read, but that everyone
would absorb their wisdom, right.  Not!)


	>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.


What really happened is that, upon weighing the relative merits of
John's action vs Vulis' contributions, what John did was seen as more of
a benefit than a detriment, and this dimmed any arguments which might
have been raised against it.   It's not like everyone was clammoring for
the privilege of reading what Vulis had to say or there aren't any other
avenues to getting his literary works.

The "unspoken" understanding on the list is that it was started by a
couple of guys who happen to be very libertarian/cryptoanarchist in
their philosophy of life (not simply as it applies to cryptography, but
rather as cryptography relates to that philosophy).  I put "unspoken" in
quotes because there have been no end of discussion and comments and
replies and retorts and flames on this very subject in the past years
since I've been on the list (Oct '93, and it is actually what attracted
me to subscribing), so it has hardly gone unmentioned and to many is no
surprise, although is often difficult for them to see or agree with.  

I recommend that you go through the archives and do a little light
reading.  Your mind will soon be saturated with the flavor of the
underlying theme, and you will Understand.

   ..
Blanc