From: CypherPisser <cp@dev.null>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 00:17:23 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: 18" (WAS: Re: Stronghold 1/2)
In-Reply-To: <199710061516.LAA19565@jafar.issl.atl.hp.com>
Message-ID: <34390B46.4261@dev.null>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Jeff Barber wrote: 
> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM writes:
> > "Moderation" is a misnomer. C2Net engaged in outright fraud by providing
> > a list which C2Net claimed would contain the articles rejected by the
> > C2Net moderator, then censoring articles from both the censored and the
> > uncensored lists. At least one of my articles (not the one about Stronghold;
> > the one quoting the threatening letter from C2net's lawyers) didn't make
> > it even to the "unedited" list.

> this is sufficient to "prove" to most of us the
> charge of "liar" against you (ignoring the several hundred other
> examples that might come to mind from the last couple of years).

  Lies, like Beauty and Cocksize, are in the aye's of the beholders.

> I don't particularly care about this except that it reinforces why
> your credibility is so low here.
 
  The last bid I saw on the list was $ 150,000.00.

> > Jeff Barber <jeffb@issl.atl.hp.com> wrote:
>    [quoting Dimitri:]
> > >> Lucky is lying: the censored articles were also filtered from the list which
> > >> was billed as being unfiltered.
> > >
> > >This is revisionist history.  I can't recall any intimation at the
> > >time that any messages were filtered from the unfiltered list.

  Gee, then you must have been one of the list members who were so busy
pissing on anyone that disagreed with your position that you paid no
attention to things you didn't want to see, and managed to block out
the posts which flatly contradicted what you wanted to believe.

  Me? Well, I just pissed on everyone in sight, and had a jolly good
time doing it, but I also subscribed to all three lists at one point
or another, and I read the message headers of most of the posts to
the list both before, during and after the moderation experiment.
{or censorship attack, depending on the angle you were pissing from}

> > If you can't recall, I'm quoting a bunch of stuff below. At least one of
> > my articles, the one quoting the threatening letter from C2net's lawyers,
> > didn't make it even to the "unedited" list.
> 
> Since obviously none of us who were on the -unedited list can say for
> sure whether we received everything sent to it, I can't say with
> certainty this never happened.  But....

  Yes we can...
  Unless you were on a CypherPunks mailing list in a parallel universe
(not to be discounted, since some very strange things went on during
that period of time), there were more than a few posts between Sandy
and the list/list-members in which he spoke openly about the posts 
which he shitcanned, his (faulty) reasoning behind it, and a variety of
other troubling 'rules and regulations' in which 'flameless' posts which
made reference to 'flaming' posts, even if not quoting the 'offensive'
part (such as 'bad boy!), became 'flames-by-association.'
  In the end, Sandy was drawing more Crayola lines between the list
members than the CypherPunks conspiracy-theory maniacs. {The major
difference being that Sandy was using the 'new' colors, which everyone
knows are part of the worldwide plot by the underground reptilian 
Nazis.}

> The fact that *you* are constantly accusing people you don't
> apparently know of engaging in various sexual acts or holding a certain
> sexual orientation is evidence enough that you are unreliable.  It
> seems to be your stance that you are free to fabricate anything the
> truth of which cannot be utterly *disproven*.

  Been there, done that, stole the T-shirt, and got out of Dodge without
getting killed or caught. (Although there are still rumors of Tim May
"headed North.")
  As they say in Texas (or should), "Even a bad shot is right 50% of the
time--if he uses a shotgun."
  Read the News of the Weird, sometime. It uses only 'real' facts from
the 'respectable' media and they still manage to paint a much more
bizarre picture of reality than even the looniest of CypherPunks.

> And if you're
> simply "throwing rocks" at Sameer with no substance behind your
> allegations, the rest of us are unlikely to come to your "defense".

  Who died and made *you* Chief CypherPunks Spokesperson?
  (Anonymous? TruthMonger? Nobody?)

> Also, here's a little hint (from a non-lawyer): truth is generally a
> very good defense to a libel suit.  You may squirm and dance and claim
> you don't want to deal with the hassle or expense of a suit, but we
> all know precisely what that really means...

  Yes...and we all disagree, nonetheless.
  We are getting away from the important issue in this thread, which is
that CypherPunks are most effective when engaging in pissing contests
and shooting themselves and each other in the foot.
  This makes the AOL'ers too nervous to stick around long, helps us to
work off angry energy which might otherwise cause our hands to shake 
when working on sensitive nuclear devices, and gives people in the
'Home' more constructive and destructive things to do than sitting
around all day cutting out those damned paper dolls. (And boy am I
getting tired of that).

  If you choose to reply to this post, please be polite. I am a very
sensitive person, and easily offended.

CypherPisser