From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 09:29:24 -0800 (PST)
To: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
Subject: Re: Sandy and the Doc
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970119011900.13146D-100000@crl13.crl.com>
Message-ID: <32E259C9.7B20@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > Do we now have to have occasional assurances that the "unedited" list
> > is not being restrained?  I thought that was a given, beyond question
> > of any kind.  I thought *all* of the controversy revolved around the
> > edited/censored list (having stole the original list's name), and that
> > everyone understood that the uncensored list was untouchable.  But now
> > Sandy is taken to offering reassurances.  What's next??

> Dale, don't be such an ass.  If "everyone understood that the
> uncensored (sic) list was untouchable" then why have you and
> others continued to challenge that proposition.  You have put
> forward the classic heads-I-win-tails-you-lose logical fallacy.
> If I say nothing to support the proposition you whine about a
> "hidden agenda."  If I reaffirm my commitment to the plan, you
> spout pop psychological nonsense of the "the lady doth protest
> too much variety."  Which is it, Dale?  You are so transparent.

Your/Gilmore's *renaming* of the original list, and co-opting of the
*original* name for the edited list is prima facie evidence of bad
faith, i.e., a transparent attempt to fool the public into accepting
that the edited list is the *real, original* list, despite the dis-
claimer put forth in the introduction to the new plan (a paragraph
that few will read, and much fewer will remember).

I'll make you a deal, even though I hold no *real* cards.  Set the
original name back to the original, unedited list, and vice-versa,
and I'll back off of all these complaints, assuming that you don't
try something else that impinges on the integrity of the original list.

As far as hidden agendas go, the flip side of that coin is that I'm
expected to believe that Gilmore is the Mother Teresa of the Internet,
or something like that.  Personally, I don't care what scam you or he
could possibly (hypothetically) be involved in, as long as it doesn't
impinge on certain essential liberties and truths, in a way that
offends me.  If you insist that what you and he are doing is totally
non-profit, has nothing to do with government grants or spying, etc.,
and is purely a personal hobby-type pursuit, well, I don't really
believe in the Easter Bunny, and please forgive me for not believing
this one.  Note that I'm not attacking you purely because I'm alleging
(hypothetically) that you have an ulterior motive for the work you're
doing on cypherpunks, I'm merely pointing out reasonable speculations
which could account for what's happening here.