From: Toto <toto@sk.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 13:16:01 -0800 (PST)
To: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Subject: Re: Toto's database
Message-ID: <199701282116.NAA02574@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Greg Broiles wrote:
> An interesting assertion. Is your database available for others to draw
> their own conclusions from? 

  As a matter of fact, it is. It consists of the cypherpunks unedited
and
flames list.

> I'd appreciate seeing at least a first-level abstraction of the data

 Given the well-developed and ratiionally strong questions you asked in
your post, I am afraid that you would find my abstractions of data
rather rudimentary, at best.
  I keep a separate directory of CypherSpam, for my own purposes, and I 
merely popped the moderation-related criticisms into another directory
and made some direct comparisons. I used my computer-brain to draw my
conclusions from, which I suppose might raise the issue of personal
bias and/or competent technology. (I regard my brain as a Pentium, but
there are others who aver that it can more closely be compared to the
digital circuitry on their office coffee-machine)

> Of course, correlation alone doesn't tell us much. If it really exists, it
> suggests that the two phenomena observed are related in some way, but it
> doesn't tell us the nature or the cause of the relationship.

  That is why the world has need of spin-doctors, conspiracy theorists 
and data-analysts.

> Another explanation would be that a moderation opponent is sending the
> spams as a way to punish the proponents of moderation.

  This is an illogical conclusion, since the proponents of moderation 
receive the censored list, and therefore do not receive the UCE/Spams.
  On the other hand, the UCE/Spams are passed along to the other lists,
despite the fact that not a single member of the list has indicated 
any desire to receive them. The fact that John and Sandy have shown
absolutely no concern for 'protecting' the list members from UCE/Spam 
until their forced censoring of 'undesirable' list members indicates 
that the 'punishment' you mention applies only to those who oppose
the censorship of list members.
 
> I think this is especially true given the relatively inexact nature of the
> "spam" weapon

  Unfortunately, the 'spam weapon' is an extremely exact science in the
hands of those familiar with remailer systems and bots.  Also, some of
the spams appear to originate from toad.com itself, as opposed to coming
from outside sources.

Toto