From: paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 02:15:05 -0800 (PST)
To: John Gilmore <gnu@toad.com>
Subject: Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
Message-ID: <855738588.515142.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



> Sandy hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. Nemesis
> submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous statements about
> Sandy's employer.  He never anticipated that he wouldn't be able to
> follow his announced "post it to one list or the other" policy because
> to do so would make him legally liable (in his opinion; he's a lawyer,
> I'm not).  His gears jammed, and the whole machine came to a halt for
> a few days.

No, I think you are mistaken. If you take this as a pothole then 
there was very little road throughout the entire "moderation 
experiment". At the end of the day Sandfort discarded articles he 
didn`t like without posting them to either list and routed all 
criticism of his censorhip to the shit can.

> Now each of these posters will get their chance to do it "right" --
> on their own time and with their own resources.

As I said, you have dragged the lists name down with you. It is 
better that you close the list down now so it is no longer associated 
with a fascist such as yourself.

> A large fraction of the list seems to think that "freedom of speech"
> means that everyone is required to listen to everyone else at all
> times.  That there can't be focused, topical conversations in a
> society that has freedom of speech.  I would say the opposite; part of
> freedom of speech is the freedom to choose to whom we speak and to
> whom we listen.  This is part of what cryptography does: lets us
> control who can receive our speech, and lets recievers determine who
> the speaker is.

This is accepted by many members of the list including myself,  
However, I prefer to choose for myself who I listen to and converse with rather 
than having you or Sandfort decide for me.
 
> To paraphrase Zappa, you wouldn't know censorship if it bit you on the
> ass.  You think you're being censored when you're just being excluded
> from a forum because what you're saying isn't interesting to that forum.

And you wouldn`t know an anarchist if he bit you on the ass. Toad was 
supposed to host a list the purpose of which was to allow people to 
speak freely and without "moderation". You have censored it and you 
have fucked up. Face it, you are a fascist.

> So anyway, I'm tired of it all.  I'd much rather focus on getting my
> crypto work done than babysitting majordomo, tracking down attempts to
> subscribe the entire US Congress to the list, and debating the seventy
> or eighty "obvious right ways" to handle the list.

The obvious right way to handle the list, and the way you advocated 
until your greed for power and fear of criticism warped your 
judgement, was to run it as a totally free and open list.
 
> This is a "put up or shut up" to the cypherpunks community.

This is a "fuck off" to John Gilmore.

> The next ten days of moderated discussion, through the end of the
> original experiment, will give the community a chance to discuss
> whether and where it plans to host the list after the experiment is
> over.  My feeling is that the stalkers who have been trying to shut it
> down (Dimitri, etc) will be out in full force, trying to disrupt the
> process of finding a new home.  It would be very hard to make progress
> along that line in an unmoderated list.  Cypherpunks-unedited readers
> are welcome to try.

Eh? - Dimitri supports fully the aims and idealogies of 
crypto-anarchy as far as I can see. What he takes issue with is 
censorship, elitism and hypocisy. I happen to believe the same but I 
suppose that makes me a "stalker".

> Sandy reports that he's changing his criteria for moderation for the
> remainder of the experiment.  It was his idea, and I approve.  The
> criteria now are:
> 
> 	*  The topics of the list are:
> 		cryptography
> 		setting up replacements for cypherpunks@toad.com

Add praise of Sandfort, Gilmore (fart)(spit) and Sandforts employer 
to that.

> 	*  On-topic, legal, posts will go to the list.

Apart from the ones Sandfort doesn`t like.

> 	*  Postings with any hint of legal liability (in Sandy's opinion)
> 	   will be silently ignored.

So will posts which cricise Sandfort (spit), Gilmore (fart), Sameer 
(piss) or c2net (belch).

> 	*  Legal but off-topic posts will go to cypherpunks-flames.

Ie. None, because they will all be "silently ignored" by Sandfort.

> Sandy will apply these criteria retroactively to the backlog (of about
> 140 messages), which means that most recent criticisms of the
> moderation (which don't invove someone volunteering to do things for
> the list) will go straight to the flames list.  If you don't like it,
> I recommend that you start your own list.  Soon.

I shall, and on topic posts shall include those declaring John 
Gilmore is a cocksucker. And off topic posts will not be censored, so 
fuck you.
 

  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"