From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:11:35 -0800 (PST)
To: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Keep it Simple and the Cypherpunk Way
Message-ID: <199702151911.LAA01317@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
> what TCM continues to stick his head in the sand over
> is the fact that the list noise levels have gotten outlandishly
> out of control over recent times, far beyond anything in memory.
> what is it due to?

"Out of control" says it all, don't you think?  (as in "control
freaks", that is).

> it appears that there is a basic law of cyberspace that S/N decreases
> as you add more people. it seems to be a very obvious and repeatable
> property.

No, it decreases rapidly when your forum more-or-less suddenly
becomes a hot item on the web.  If it weren't hot, nobody would
bother, believe me.

> there are some significant lessons about cryptoanarchy that are
> completely evading TCM. how well does anarchy scale? apparently, not
> well. TCM would like to pretend that just deleting posts and having
> outsider filterers is a "solution" to the problem and argues for
> business as usual, upholding the status quo.

"Scale" is a term used by controllers.

> the problem is that when you have a deteriorating situation, the
> status quo is not a valid concept. keeping the status quo means
> further deterioration.

Look at the big picture.  Some people have proposed unacceptable
methods for controlling human population, and it should be no
surprise that the same mentality would pervade these forums.

> TCM also fails to address the problem of AGENT PROVOCATEURS. the
> cyberspace list is intensely fragile and susceptible/ vulnerable
> to them as Vulis demonstrates. it only takes ONE and a lot of
> tentacles. does TCM propose a solution to this? no, of course not,
> because he has a blind spot when it comes to realizing the
> PATENTLY OBVIOUS FLAWS OF CRYPTOANARCHY that stare him in the face.

Unless, of course, the forum itself (and its proponents) are
themselves the "agent provocateurs".

> if cpunks had a formal way of making decisions, and some loyalty
> to each other, instead of BAILING OUT at the slightest difficulty,
> perhaps the situation would be different, eh? see how quickly people
> who were once friends simply WALK OUT on each other in the cryptoanarchist
> approach? where is the loyalty? the sense of working for the greater
> good? it's gone. TCM simply ABANDONS the list at the first opportunity,
> and ignores the years of hard work that J.G. has put into it.

Loyalty?  Amongst anarchists?  Two points: Loyalty on c-punks was
almost entirely a negative factor (i.e., sucking up to Gilmore).
Two, Tim May is for Tim May (as he should be), and he didn't abandon
his ideals one bit, which is a helluva lot more to say for him than
Gilmore or Sandfort.

> timmy, cpunks, etc. you are getting a lesson in REALITY. you are seeing
> the logical conclusion of your views playing out before you. acrimony,
> bitterness, resignation, chaos, confusion, cacaphony, anarchy.

Perhaps you should turn your talents to writing country songs.