From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 17:30:33 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
Message-ID: <8Z161D74w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk writes:
>
> > > > My perfectly crypto-relevant article regarding possible attacks
> > > > on human relationships with the use of forged mail and anonymous
> > > > remailers, has been tossed out (sorted) into cypherpunks-flames
> > > > mailing list.
> > >
> > > I don`t think I read the article (even though I subscribe to the
> > > unmoderated list), can you forward me a copy.
> > > As I understand it though, from other comentaries, it was junked
> > > because it was in response to a message by Dimitri who, given that it
> > > is Sandy that is moderating the list, is no doubt filtered by
> > > different criteria than anyone else on the list, in my opinion a
> > > censorous and fascist restraint as Dimitri has recently been posting
> > > more crypto relevant material, besides which whatever the content of
> > > his posts they should be open to review before a decision is made on
> > > if they are to be junked or not.
> >
> > Has Paul reversed his previous pro-censorship stand and decided to
> > learn something about crypto from people who actually know some?
>
> There is no change of stance needed, I happen to believe you are
> knowledgable about cryptography and sometimes post worthwhile
> commentary and information, however, you also post a lot of dreck and
> flammable material which means I respond in kind. That does not mean
> I believe you, or anyone else, should be censored.

I distinctly recall how Paul used to call for censoring me. If he's
changed his mind and really doesn't think that anyone should be censored,
it's a welcome development - even if it was brought on by the sandfart
censoring Paul.

> > > > Sandy also states rather plainly that crypto-relevance is not the
> > > > criterion by which he moderates this list. I question this policy.
> > >
> > > Yes Sandy, please enlighten us, what is the criterion you use to
> > > moderate the list if not crypto-relevancy. I suspect an element of
> > > self preservation and protection of the list fuhrer and diktat maker
> > > John Gilmore (who, until the disgraceful incident with Dimitri
> > > commanded some respect on this list).
> >
> > I used to respect Gilmore until this series of incidents (unsubscribing
> > me, turning list moderated).  Now I only have disdain for him.
>
> I agree entirely, Gilmore was a respected man (despite the EFF being
> a corporate whore) who threw any respect and admiration others had
> for him away.

I wonder what he thinks he got in exchange...

> > > > I would like to hear your opinions as to whether such policies satisfy
> > > > the current readership.
> > >
> > > I don`t think this is the point, John Gilmore is free to appoint
> > > whoever he wants to moderate his list, he is free to censor all
> > > messages which criticise him and his censorship, however, subscribers
> > > to the list should be told they are being censored on these grounds
> > > and not on some facade of "crypto relevancy" or another thin veil
> > > drawn weakly over content based censorship to protect a certain class
> > > of list members.
> >
> > Quite a few people have expressed interest in re-creating an unmoderated
> > cypherpunks list at another site if Gilmore decided to stick to his
> > "moderation experiment".
>
> I notice and appreciate the quotes around "moderation experiment",
> this is, without doubt, a permenant measure to silence members of the
> list who dare to offer criticism of anyone an element of {x: x a
> friend or co-censor of John Gilmore}

Yes - clearly the personality of the submitter is the most important
factor in moderator's rejections, not even the content.

> I do not have the resources to run such an unmoderated list but I
> hope someone on this list does and is good enough to start such a
> list, cypherpunks is a shell of what it once was.

I notice that the sandfart has been challenging his enemies to create
an alternative mailing list. I wonder what their contingency plan is.
Without a doubt, such a competing list would be mailbombed and flooded
with garbage by Gilmore and his entourage. What else?

> Also, please note this message will be junked onto cypherpunks-flames
> even though it contains no flames or flame bait because it dares to
> criticise the censorship of the list (once again Sandy, I give you an
> opportunity to prove me wrong).

The sandfart has proven me right already. As I said, I think we're
paying too much attention to him and his censorship, and he's just
a front for Gilmore anyway.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps