1997-05-10 - Re: Spam Update/Cyber Promo attacked

Header Data

From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: a4cca7e75414e7ef9389f8d600226b4ac17bd726c367437f091c86f85b109fa8
Message ID: <X8NH7D5w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
Reply To: <v03007800af99ae300ca9@[]>
UTC Datetime: 1997-05-10 14:52:57 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 22:52:57 +0800

Raw message

From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Sat, 10 May 1997 22:52:57 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Spam Update/Cyber Promo attacked
In-Reply-To: <v03007800af99ae300ca9@[]>
Message-ID: <X8NH7D5w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Tim May <tcmay@got.net> writes:

> At 7:46 AM -0800 5/9/97, Ray Arachelian wrote:
> >Filtering isn't the point.  Just as you have the right to free speech,
> >you also have the right to ignore someone else's speech as it is aimed at
> >you.  If you don't want Cyberspammo to spam you, they should honor your
> >request to take their crap elsewhere.

Ray Arachelian is a terrorist who publicly advocates criminal hacking.
Please e-mail your comments to jack@earthweb.com.

[Timmy C... May]
> Much as it pains me to dispute my usual ideological ally Ray A.

There's no question that Timmy and Ray are ideological allies.

> If by this Ray means "as decent human beings they should," then, well,
> perhaps so.

Suppose the request is phrased, "Please refrain from posting to soc.motss
in the future". Should a "decent human being" honor it?

Suppose the request is phrased, "Please refrain from posting to Usenet
in the future", without specifying the newsgroup.

> Fact is, so long as anybody is free to send a message to someone else, then
> what Wallace, Cantwell, Vulis, et. al. are doing is legit. Legit in the
> sense of not breaking any laws. Whether tasteful or not, legit.

Of course, Timmy May, unlike many other people, did not object when Cocksucker
John Gilmore unsubscribed me from this list (even posted a blurb in Gilmore's
support claiming that I was removed for "volume", not "content", apparently
in reference to Gilmore's lies that I was sending "50 articles/day" and
"megabytes" - both of which are outright lies).

Of course Timmy May didn't utter a word when the plan to "moderate" this
mailing list by a C2Net shill was being discussed.

Therefore is feeble attempt tp speak up in defense of someone's free speech
is insincere and hypocritical.

> Indeed, saying you don't "want" more advertisements is, for all practical
> purposes, saying "Send me more!!!!"
> So?

A decent person can filter them out, like I do.

The attempts by net.terrorists like Ray Arachelian&co to silence Wallace are
no different from the attempts by C2Net to silence me, or the attempts by
the Nazi German government to silence the Radikal, or the atttempts by
the Burmese government to silence its opposition. Only an ignorant hypocrite
like Timmy May can argue that because a particular gang of thugs calls
itself "gubmint", its form of censorship is somehow more or less benign
than private censorship enforced via terrorist acts.

I'm very glad that the Turks retaliated against Armenians in 1915 -
it's too bad they didn't get Ray Arachelian's criminal grandparents.


Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps