From: paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 08:01:08 -0800 (PST)
To: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
Subject: Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
Message-ID: <854638718.107051.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> > The list has been disentigrating for some time since the disgusting 
> > incident when Dimitri was forcibly unsubscribed from the list. 
> 
> I'm curious about the gratuitous use of the word "forcibly" by
> Paul.  Does this mean Gilmore took a fire axe to the computer or
> something?  Dimitri was unsubscribed.  It was done more or less
> against his will.  ("More or less" because he in effect said to
> John, "bet you can't stop me.")  What does "forcibly" add to this
> discussion besides melodrama?  No force was required.  John had
> the right and ability to pull the plug on Dimitri.  "No animals
> were harmed in the making of this film."  "Force," my ass.

If you can honestly say you think that Dimitri agreed to his being 
unsubscribed and not being allowed to re-subscribe then I concede the 
point, however, you cannot argue this.

> > have also been a number of postings from members of the list claiming 
> > to understand anarchism who support censorship to "protect new 
> > members of the list".
> 
> There are various definitions of "censorship" and various flavors
> of anarchism.  I'm a market anarchist, Paul is not.  Paul claims
> to believe that any form of moderation is censorship.  I think
> that enforcing standards of decorum on a private, voluntary list
> are not censorship.  Reasonable minds may differ.  I acknowledge 
> that Paul's interpretations are not without some justification.
> (I just think they are incorrect in the instant case.)  Paul, on
> the other hand, seems to be a True Believer.  He brooks no view
> other than his own.  (Curiously hypocritical under the 
> circumstrances.)

My point is not that moderating a private forum is censorship, this 
is not supposed to be a private forum (if at any point John chooses 
to make it so that is his right as the list is his property, however, 
he professes, at least in a collective sense along with the other 
list founders, that it is a free and anarchic list where people would 
not be prevented from posting whatever they want, censorship in this 
context (call it moderation of you like) seems to me out of place)).
  
> > So, there would be no intellectual dishonesty in a country claiming 
> > to be a free and open society "trying out" fascism for a month or 
> > two? - After all it`s a private country just as this is a private 
> > list....
> 
> Paul's sophistry is showing.  Nation-states are entities that
> exercise a monopoly on the use of force (real force, Paul)
> within (and often without) their boundries.  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.

The list is indeed a private forum and I resent the term sophistry. 
My interpretation of the lists original purpose and idealogy is 
clearly different from your own so we are arguing the wrong point.
My interpretation is that the list was supposed to act as a community 
as much as a forum and is therefore erring to the side of a nation 
state as opposed to private property, even though, when we come down 
to it it is someones property..


  Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"