From: lcs Mixmaster Remailer <mix@anon.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 04:34:24 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Russ Alberry/CAUCE vs. the Cypherpunks (was: Re: RESULT: comp.org.cauc
In-Reply-To: <64pmr8$b4j@smash.gatech.edu>
Message-ID: <19971123202001.27996.qmail@nym.alias.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



mindspring.com> <slrn676p9b.728.ichudov@manifold.algebra.com> <m3hg981owi.fsf@w

Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> wrote:

> * I am specifically pissed at Igor about trolling for votes on random
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>   newsgroups and on Cypherpunks.  I am not pissed at him for disliking
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^
>   the moderation policy; he's entirely entitled to dislike the moderation
>   policy and vote accordingly.
>   
> * If he keeps trolling for votes on Cypherpunks to defeat random
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>   moderated group proposals he doesn't happen to like for one reason or
>   another, I'll keep doing what I can to counter his propaganda campaigns
>   (and judging from this result, I think it's fairly obvious that he'll
>   continue losing and may in fact help a few groups *pass* that wouldn't
>   have otherwise just by being as annoying as he was this time).

In what sense are you using the word "trolling"?  Are you saying that the
mention of a proposal to ban anonymity is considered "trolling" when posted
amongst a group of pro-privacy, pro-anonymity individuals such as the
Cypherpunks?  Or are you objecting, in general, to the mention of a proposal
to ANY group that's not likely to favor it?

Why should a proposal to require the disclosure of a poster's e-mail address
(and its contribution to the address harvesters) as a pre-requisite to 
express an opinion not itself be fully disclosed and discussed?  Were you
counting on slipping that rule through unnoticed?

Why is publicly disagreeing with you considered a "propaganda campaign"?
Why should the C.A.U.C.E. brand of propaganda be the only variety allowed?

When I first heard of the C.A.U.C.E., my initial thought was that it was a 
good idea.  Finally a means to fight back against the spammers.  Now I'm 
starting  to wonder what sort of agenda is driving some of these illogical
anti-privacy requirements.  As bad as spam and UCE has become, one does have 
to make sure that each proposed cure isn't worse than the disease itself.  
For example, you *COULD* remedy the problem of criminals carrying concealed 
weapons by requiring everyone to walk the streets naked...

--