From: "tmcghan@gill-simpson.com" <tmcghan@gill-simpson.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:42:38 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"
Message-ID: <199702031742.JAA28108@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


on or about:  Sun, 2 Feb 1997 14:51:47 -0800

in a message allegedly from:  "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>

{snip}

> the really important issue is this: is the _physical hosting_ of the
> Cypherpunks mailing list coterminous with the "Cypherpunks"? 

{ much thoughtful and well-phrased commentary elided }

> I would have had no problem had John announced that he was creating
> a new list, the "Good Stuff" list, with Sandy has his Chooser of
> Good Stuff.

> But by making the _main list_ the censored one, this skewed things
> considerably.

> * Why, many reasonable people may ask, did I not simply unsubscribe
> from the "Cypherpunks" list and subscribe to the"Cypherpunks-Unedited) 
>(or whatever it is called) list? Because of my overall anger 

> But the clear message by having Sandy censor the
> main list (the default list, the list name with the main name, the
> list we all know about, etc.) 
{snip}

Now that the horse is out of the barn, ( or maybe not? ), I can't help
but ask whether one specific 'change to the change' would have
satisfied most of your objections:  retaining 'cypherpunks' as the
name of the unedited, all-the-crud-you-can-read-and-then-some,
version, and adding an 'cp-worthwhile' list for those of us who prefer
not to wade thru mountains of garbage to glean a few precious tidbits.

What's in a name?  Is perception more important ( to you ) than 
reality?  If just swapping names between cp and cp-unedited would make
such a large difference, I humbly suggest to you that you consider how
much labels need to matter.  Is the title of the group more important
the the content?  From where I sit, this looks a lot like a
style-over-substance complaint.  Of course, I don't have my trifocals
on just at the moment.

It may also be worth noting that the current 'status quo' is a 
transient experiment, with a fairly short time limit.  When JG, 
Sandy, et al. evaluate the results with an eye to future 
direction(s), they may well consider an 'inverted default' for the two
list names (i.e.:  cp / cp-unedited)

In any event, please accept my .02 in the spirit in which it is 
intended ( constructive criticism ).

/* */