From: "Cynthia H. Brown" <cynthb@sonetis.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 14:44:44 -0800 (PST)
To: Toto <toto@sk.sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks maiing list
Message-ID: <199701242244.OAA10411@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Fri, 24 Jan 1997, Toto wrote:

> Igor Chudov @ home wrote:

<snip>

> > The explanation that Sandy Sandfort gave me mentioned that he rejected
> > my message because it continued a thread where Sandy noticed instances
> > of "flaming". Note that my message was free of any flames, including
> > its quoted part.
> 
>   The standard of what constitutes a 'flame' seems to rest very much
> upon whom a comment is directed at, or merely 'vaguely toward'.  


Beauty, flames and censorship are all in the eyes of the beholder.  
However, by providing both "raw" and "cooked" versions of the list, Sandy 
is allowing readers to choose for themselves whether or not they want 
someone else's filters applied to their mailbox.  Personally, I choose to 
press the "Delete" key myself.

<snip>

> > Sandy also states rather plainly that crypto-relevance is not the
> > criterion by which he moderates this list.
> 
>   This was more than obvious to anyone who cared to cast an objective
> eye on the process, but their input was pooh-paah'd by the 'washed 
> masses'.

Note that Sandy also stated that the post in question would not be sent to 
the 'washed masses'.

> > I would like to hear your opinions as to whether such policies satisfy
> > the current readership.
> 
>   Like all of the 'opinions' that were expressed prior to the censorship
> of the list? I haven't seen any indication that these opinions were 
> given the slightest consideration.  This is not the readership's list.
> It is a private individual's list.

Agreed, and said private individual can do as s/he sees fit.  My only
objection is that the moderated version has the same name as the original
list (sounds like Rogers Cable's recent attempt at "Costs More Unless You 
Speak Up Now" channels).

<snip>

>   In short, I don't see the moderation as being 'fair', and I don't
> think it was ever meant to be.

Again, fairness is in the eyes of the beholder.  I don't object to the 
list being filtered, as long as everyone understands that this is 
happening.


What will happen, I wonder, if at the end of the trial period the number
of subscribers to the "raw" list outnumbers those who get the "cooked"
list, or vice versa?  Is that one of the criteria for determining the
"success" of the experiment? 

Cynthia

===============================================================
Cynthia H. Brown, P.Eng.
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
E-mail:     cynthb@sonetis.com
Home Page:  http://www.sonetis.com/~cynthb/
PGP Key:    See Home Page
Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received.

        Klein bottle for rent; enquire within.