From: Toto <toto@sk.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 03:14:25 -0800 (PST)
To: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
Subject: Re: Sandy and the Doc
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970118201607.10538D-100000@crl10.crl.com>
Message-ID: <32E2155C.A65@sk.sympatico.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> 
> Correcting is not an insult.

  My post did not say it was, and did not suggest that you 
insulted Dr. DV K in your post.

>  He was not "silenced" in any way.  Toto's proposition, 
>  therefore, does not make sense to me.

  If being forcefully unsubscribed 'does not count' as an
attempt to silence someone, then I suppose that neither does
shipping them to a labor camp in Siberia.

> Toto's prejudice (in the literal sense of the
> word, i.e., "to pre-judge") is showing.

  If you are going to define the words you are using, then
perhaps you should define them a little more specifically
and back them up with specifics, rather than use them as
out-of-context, vague declarations.
  Black's Law Dictionary defines 'prejudice' as: A forejudgment;
A leaning towards one side of a cause for some reason other
than a conviction of its justice.

  My post did not make a judgement as to the integrity of
your (or anyone's) future moderation of this list, but 
expressed concern in relation to the attitudes toward 
moderation, based on the postings that have already taken 
place on this list.
  (You're toast, punk. / Your end is drawing near, asshole. 
etc., etc., etc.)
  Until I see some indication, other than vague assurances,
that there is, in fact, some established rational behind 
the way the moderation process will be implemented, my 
concerns will remain.

  As far as figuring out, to everyone's satisfaction, just
what constitues a 'flame', good luck, since everyone seems
to have a different definition.
  Vague, unsubstatiated claims of someone's 'prejudice' might be
considered by some to be a flame, or simply regarded as 
'misjudgement' by others.  
  Personally, I have no problem with someone telling me "You're 
full of shit.", rather than, "Sir, I believe you are in 
error."  Others, having played less hockey, might have 
gentler sensibilities.
  DataETRetch seemed to feel terribly put-upon and personally
attacked by various CypherPunks being so brazenly outspoken as
to simply ask for some basis of verification for the outlandish
claims they were making for their software.  Their representative
openly accused the CypherPunks of 'flaming' him for raising valid
concerns about the technical nature of their software.

  There certainly seem to be more than a few people who have
faith in your capacity to be a decent moderator, and I see
no great reason to disagree with them, but it bothers me
that you would take my statement of my concerns, and my
reasons behind them, to be a personally biased pre-judgement
of your integrity.
  I find it bothersome that some of the self-proclaimed
'upstanding' members of the CypherPunks list have responded
to my attacks on their 'logic' with 'personal' attacks on,
and insults toward, myself.  At the same time, I would rather
hear what they have to say, and be able to make my own personal
judgement as to whether the problem is mine, or theirs, than
to be 'protected' from them.

  I hope that your efforts towards decreasing the list's level
of blatantly offensive crapola will not lead towards reducing
the CypherPunks' tendencies to be outspokenly strong in their
convictions.
  Cryptography is going to be an increasingly important issue
in all areas of life in our electronically-global future, and
without serious discussion of the issues that go hand-in-hand
with its development, then the 'numbers' and the technology
behind them have little real meaning.

Toto