From: Anonymous <nobody@REPLAY.COM>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 13:47:20 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: Moderated vs. Unmoderated Lists
Message-ID: <199711270525.GAA01200@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



The issue is not moderation.  It is whether this list has a focus, a
central set of ideas, a reason for existence.  If we're just going to
talk about whatever anyone finds interesting, there is nothing to stop
the list from drifting away from its goals.

In fact, that is exactly what has happened.  Tim May's violent rhetoric
has attracted others who believe in violence.  Vulis's racist and sexist
comments have brought other members who are comfortable expressing
negative comments about other races and nationalities.  There is little
discussion about cryptography any more.

Tim May:

>This has crypto anarchy relevance in that strong crypto will undermine the
>ability of the U.S. government to fight foreign wars and engange in foreign
>entanglements. How this will happen should be obvious.

What difference does it make whether it has crypto anarchy relevance?
No one cares about that any more.  The only thing that matters today
is whether it includes crypto racism, or crypto terrorism, or crypto
white supremacy.

> Yes, I talk about what interests me. A single essay I _write_ represents my
> views. I avoid cc:ing the list with forwarded stuff from Yahoo, as some are
> wont to do.
>
> Thus, I feel no guilt about writing some essay or article on something of
> interest to me.

Writing off-topic essays isn't the problem.  Posting them here is.  Why
don't you use alt.fan.oj-simpson for your racist rants like you used to?