From: kibo <kibo@thecia.net>
Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 18:16:57 +0800
To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org
Subject: Re: CFV: moderate sci.cryonics -- I vote NO
In-Reply-To: <199705200159.UAA05630@manifold.algebra.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.96.970520053902.29300C-100000@shell.thecia.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


this deals with a sci newsgroup being moderated, which
is an exception to the "unmoderated" rule.

On Mon, 19 May 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:

> Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 20:59:27 -0500
> From: "Igor Chudov @ home" <ichudov@algebra.com>
> Reply-To: freedom-knights@jetcafe.org
> To: mail2news@manifold.algebra.com, hkt@wwa.com,
>     freedom-knights@jetcafe.org, mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu,
>     cypherpunks@manifold.algebra.com
> Cc: ichudov@manifold.algebra.com
> Subject: Re: CFV: moderate sci.cryonics -- I vote NO
> Newsgroups: sci.cryonics,news.groups,alt.cypherpunks,alt.privacy,alt.privacy.anon-server,alt.anonymous.messages,alt.anonymous.remailers,alt.conspiracy
> 
> Lewis McCarthy (lmccarth@cs.umass.edu) wrote in <3377FA31.167E@cs.umass.edu>:
> * Charles Platt writes:
> * > I feel it's unfortunate that the 
> * > charter was worded to exclude anonymous postings, but clearly this 
> * > news group does need to be moderated, and I believe that Keith will 
> * > do so fairly and openly.
> * 
> * That's all well and good, but the CFV is a referendum (in part) on the 
> * particular charter that appears in the CFV, not on an alternate policy
> * that purportedly may be followed by the moderator. Unfairly applied
> 
> That is correct.
> 
> The promises by the proposed moderator are even more suspicious given
> that:
> 
> 	This future moderator PROMISES TO VIOLATE HIS OWN CHARTER.
> 

Given the subject, the attempt to limit the content is
going to be tough.  What do you do with the religious zealots
which say "God does not like frozen people" ?

> The charter is absolutely clear in respect to what is not allowed:
> 
> Charter> Unacceptable messages include personal attacks, messages 

You had better specifically define what a "personal attack" is.

You may never limit my ability to call you a "motherfucker" in any forum,
and if you call that a "personal attack" then you have a censorship
problem.

> Charter> posted without a valid sender address, and any message not 
> Charter> pertaining to the topics above.
> 

And what about crossposting?  Does the charter put any limit on that?
Any limitations on that are Unconstitutional.

> (see 
> 
> http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=5944883&server=db97p2x&CONTEXT=864091788.16601&hitnum=11
> 
> for the charter and ballot)
> 
> 
> * written rules have a real chance of being challenged, whereas with 
> * unwritten rules there's much less hope of receiving fair treatment. 
> * Overly broad restrictions, like the one in the CFV regarding messages 
> * from unreplyable senders, are a boon for selective enforcement. 
> 
> I repeat again, in my opinion, there is no valid reason for any
> moderated discussion newsgroup to ever forbid anonymous and pseudonymous
> postings. Such restrictions destroy the value that usenet newsgroups
> have.
> 

Exactly, and anonymity is a constitutional right.

> Correspondently, I will strongly oppose any proposal that restricts
> posters ability to post anonymously.
> 
> Presence of such provision in the charter is a strong indication
> that the proponent is a control freak.
> 
> * It's been a couple of years since I voted on a newsgroup proposal, but
> * I'll be voting NO on this sci.cryonics reorganization. Get back to me
> * if the charter is reworded s.t. the moderator is directed to judge a
> * message primarily based on its _content_  rather than its _sender_.
> 
> Could not agree more!
> 
> * CFV pointer: Message-ID <863077501.7020@isc.org>, posted to the usual
> * places on May 8 by David Bostwick
> * -- 
> * Lewis    http://www.cs.umass.edu/~lmccarth/lmkey.asc   "And all the 
> * science, I don't understand; it's just my job, eight days a week..."
> 

Both this David Bostwick and this Charles Platt are suspicious characters.
They have past or present bofh.cabal connections, do they not?