From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 01:58:06 -0800 (PST)
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com>
Subject: Re: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
Message-ID: <199702020958.BAA16066@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Declan McCullagh wrote:
> That question is one for Tim to answer, but I should point out that
> philosophical anarchists are not necessarily opposed to rules, just
> government rules -- which this moderation policy clearly is not.

I've seen this kind of statement so many times I just have to point it
out:  "which this moderation policy *clearly* (emph. mine) is not".

Why is it so clear to you, but not everyone?  Am I missing something?
Didn't Reagan, Bush, North et al make it clear enough to Americans
that much of what the govt. does has been privatized, as if we didn't
know already from the 1970's assassination hearings in the Congress,
or from when Carter fired the 900 security guys and they went to work
for "private" contractors?

I ask you again to look at the motives of the people involved.  John
Gilmore isn't about to waste a second of his personal time "moderating"
this list (who could blame him?), and I can't for the life of me see
a reason why Sandy would want to devote so much time to it.  Have you
or anyone seen a real reason why Sandy would want to do this?  Is he
so devoted to crypto and personal freedom that he'll do *anything* to
eliminate the postings which "threaten" this list, or could there be
some other, hidden motivation?  My long experience in the real world
says that professional people do *not* devote a great deal of their
time to things like this unless there is an *awfully* good reason.

> On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > Toto wrote:
> > > 3.5.1 Contrary to what people sometimes claim, there is no ruling
> > >        clique of Cypherpunks. Anybody is free to do nearly anything,
> > >        just not free to commit others to course of action, or claim
> > >        to speak for the "Cypherpunks" as a group (and this last
> > >        point is unenforceable except through reputation and social
> > >        repercussions).
> > > 3.6.3 "Why isn't the list moderated?"
> > >       ...hardly consistent with many of our anarchist leanings, is it?
> > >       - "No, please, let's not become a 'moderated' newsgroup. This
> > >       would be the end of freedom!

> > Is this why T.C. May hasn't posted in quite a while?