From: Richard Fiero <rfiero@pophost.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 21:44:45 -0800 (PST)
To: Sandy Sandfort <paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
Subject: Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
In-Reply-To: <199701282157.NAA04110@toad.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.1.32.19970128213609.006dc248@pop.pophost.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Get it straight Sandy Sandfort. I'm not in your home. I am in my home and I
will observe my priorities, not your's.

Sandy Sandfort writes:
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mail lists are far
>more like private homes, businesses or clubs.  When you are a
>guest there, you are subject to their rules of behavior.

If Dr. Vulis was pushing the envelope in list-abuse as a multi-stage social
experiment, Sandy Sandfort has surpassed him by far. In part I refer to a
Sandy Sandfort reply to a criticism made by Paul Bradley. The reply was
made public two hours before the criticism was. This is not moderation. It
is manipulation and interference. Since I have a low tolerance for
self-serving pedantry, I never would have noticed the criticism if it had
not been preceded by the reply.

In the reply, Sandy Sandfort employs the name-calling "sophist" and
"hypocrite." Also in the reply is the Freudian slip or obscene proposition:
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  "Force," my ass. 
Shouldn't this have gone to cypherpunks-flames?

One might wonder just what the rules of proper decorum are.

-- Richard Fiero