From: Kevin L Prigge <Kevin.L.Prigge-2@tc.umn.edu>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 10:04:35 -0800 (PST)
To: paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
In-Reply-To: <199701271643.IAA27438@toad.com>
Message-ID: <32ecee29303e002@noc.tc.umn.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk said:
> > I think both of these groups are intellectually dishonest in the
> > extreme when it comes to telling others how this list should be
> > run.  I doubt any of them would permit the sort of disruptive
> > behavior that goes on here to go unchallenged in salons they
> > sponsor in their own homes or on Net lists that they themselves 
> > maintain.
> 
> If you want to talk about intellectual dishonesty try the following:
> 
> Imagine if you will a list, the original purpose of which was
> to act as a free and open forum for discussion of cryptography and 
> related issues. A list which proudly proclaims in its "welcome to 
> the list" message:
> 
> We do not seek to prevent other people from
> speaking about their experiences or their opinions.
> 
> Now imagine that list falling into a state of content based 
> censorship and censorship based on an unspoken but ever present 
> class structure, then ask yourself which list you know that most 
> closely matches this description, it`s a pretty revealing exercise.

The exercise reveals to me that only by ignoring the first paragraph
of your example, the part that reads "Imagine if you will a list, 
the original purpose of which was to act as a free and open forum 
for discussion of cryptography and related issues." can you make
a claim of content based censorship. The purpose of this list was
and should be discussion of cryptography and related issues. The
fact that some people choose this as a forum for personal attacks
and blathering about issues that are not even vaguely related to
the discussion of cryptography and related issues does not make it
a proper forum for such communication.

> > This is a voluntary list folks.  We tried incivility and that did
> > not work.  Right now we are experimenting with reasoned discourse
> > in an atmosphere of interpersonal respect and good will. 
> 
> For "Reasoned discourse in an atmosphere of interpersonal respect and 
> good will" read "content based censorship".

For "voluntary list" read "voluntary list".

> 
> > If most list members like the change, it will continue.  If not, then we
> > can go back to the swill or perhaps try something else.  In the
> > meantime, get over it.  If you really like flames and spam, show
> > John and me how it really should be done.  Start another list.  
> > Of course squating and claim jumping appeal to the lazy a lot
> > more than homesteading.
> 
> It is a foregone conclusion that the upper class of list members will 
> have no dispute over the censorship and therefore the change will be 
> permenant, it is a form of online ethnic cleansing whereby the lists 
> clique of illuminati have taken it upon themselves to remove the 
> elements of the list they feel endanger their position of superiority 
> and respect, the point they have missed is that they have no 
> credibility whatsoever after this incident, as well as a number of 
> other such occurances and therefore are only isolating themselves 
> into their own little world.

The Big Lie once again. yadda yadda yadda "Censorship!" yadda yadda
yadda "No Credibility" yadda yadda yadda ad nauseum.

> 
> "cypherpunks will make the networks safe for censorship"

"Idiots will make the networks require censorship"

-- 
Kevin L. Prigge                     | Some mornings, it's just not worth
Systems Software Programmer         | chewing through the leather straps.
Internet Enterprise - OIT           | - Emo Phillips
University of Minnesota             |