December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: SPECIAL REPORT: Censorware in the Stacks (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)invweb.net> > Date: Mon, 22 Dec 97 23:05:19 -0600 > Subject: Re: SPECIAL REPORT: Censorware in the Stacks > >Why should any state be in the business of owning and running any parks? > >We pay $60/year for a family membership in an excellent private park. > >Most public parks in NYC are extremely unpleasant and dangerous places. > > I find it quite amazing that anyone would live in a place where you had to > pay to see grass and trees. I don't know whether I should feel blessed or cursed now....I spent several hours today clearing the yard (covered in grass) of tree limbs that were knocked down from the storm last week and in preperation for the storm to come in to town tomorrow...still have to mow that green stuff since it's getting a tad tall...maybe this weekend. Personaly, I can't imagine why anyone would allow them to build a city without parks and grass and trees and such. Hell, we have laws in Austin that make such things mandatory...there is currently a big fight going on about 'Triangle Park' here in Austin between leaving the 50+ acres at N. Lamar, Guadalupe, & 45th alone or selling to make a movie theatre and parking lot. Looks like the trees are gonna win this one...I know my dog certainly likes romping in the mud puddles...(I live about 10 blocks away) So big bucks don't always win and the city & state (the park is owned by the state hospital and currently houses some sort of juvenile center in one small corner) governments do sometimes listen to the people of a neighborhood over commercial interests. Money is not more important than trees sometimes & government sometimes does listen... Merry Christmas! ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Question on CFB variant with c[i-N]
by John Kelsey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: Johnson, Michael P (Mike) <JohnsMP(a)LOUISVILLE.STORTEK.COM> > To: 'coderpunks(a)toad.com'; 'cypherpunks(a)algebra.com'; 'David Honig' <honig(a)otc.net> > Subject: RE: Question on CFB variant with c[i-N] > Date: Monday, December 22, 1997 12:22 PM > How about this mode: > c[i] = e(K1, e(k2, c[i-1]) ^ p[i-1]) ^ p[i] > p[i] = e(K1, e(k2, c[i-1]) ^ p[i-1]) ^ p[i] > > The feedback possibilities are literally endless. The analysis of the > effects on security, speed, error propagation, etc., are left as an > exercise for the reader. <grin> > Some standard modes have been well analyzed and accepted. They also are > built into specialized cracking hardware. Offering and using multiple > modes and multiple algorithms raises the cost of building specialized > cracking hardware. I'm kind-of skeptical of the big advantages of this. I mean, if you were convinced someone with a DES-cracking engine was listening in on an encrypted channel, and you really wanted to make sure they wouldn't manage to get any plaintext, would you rather alter your system to use some weird and not-too-well analyzed chaining mode, or alter your system to use DESX or Blowfish or something else with a key length too big to be vulnerable to such keysearch machines? There clearly *are* ways to get more than 56 bits of security out of DES. However, they're not generally obvious, and even very bright cryptographers have shot themselves in the foot trying to design them. (Remember 3DES with internal CBC-mode chaining, Ladder DES, and DES-Tran-DES-Tran-DES?) --John Kelsey, kelsey(a)counterpane.com / kelsey(a)plnet.net NEW PGP print = 5D91 6F57 2646 83F9 6D7F 9C87 886D 88AF

1 0

Best Cypherpunk long gun
by Mix 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What is the best long gun for a Cypherpunk?

10 12

Re: Best Cypherpunk long gun
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 12/23/97 1:34 AM, Tim May (tcmay(a)got.net) passed this wisdom: >(The notion that the AR-15/M-16 "jams" is based on 35-year-old >early experiences in Viet Nam, using an early design and early >ammo. The jamming problems were fixed quickly, by changing the >forward assist, changing the ammo a little, and teaching soldiers >how to properly clean the weapon.) In addition to that they chrome plated the chambers which eliminate 99% of the actions where the extractor would rip off the tail end of the casing. "obturation" (almost microscopic expansion of the brass in the chamber at ignition) and the coarser finish of the unplated chambers coupled up to give a high percentage of jams. When the jam was tough enough that the tail of the cartridge got ripped off the poor trooper was up shits creek since he couldn't use a cleaning rod to remove the shell ... a lot of M16s got bent around trees because of that! By Nov 68 when I got in country the 1st MarDiv had replaced most of its M16s with the newer chromed chamber models. I don't know about other services or outfits. I had maybe a half dozen occasions where I put four to six 20 round mags (the Marines didn't start getting the 30 round mags til the Army got all theirs - sigh!) through my weapon on full auto in rapid succession and never had a jam. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNJ/kZz7r4fUXwraZAQEe2gf+JsOLKfLW9GGQBu8WNDAaqyjql1FamKQp abqMPoleLrhaHrB7TnkfTF7sdL6R9tO9syBTjqw36CKOXv/lP3/DsiSQTnML2K2s cl2eCphQvfc2b7L9ylXcihs0UHynqCgevtPLJG5f7QrSvzR+NFlFd0roBiFLLZc+ lz88qgnSUOFclhepsmYslSBEqaLX62Y11pnxb/yr1xU6DUVZv+92yhVsT2ojxZ4b n6WrsU81mFOjX+Oi41Zg9GAbMFy/cM2O2mZ4YJBEWkztWA1J9kNX6NSisv0Yswbj bkmWD3sFCeh8qKmflllh+fuxq70q8mLyws6ntzclpdgcUUs1JWGIjg== =rdqq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Brian B. Riley --> http://members.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "Give a man a fish and you have fed him for a day, but give him a case of dynamite and soon the village will be showered with mud and seaweed and unidentifiable chunks of fish." -Joe Chew

2 1

Re: Lock and Load (fwd)
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 12/22/97 6:40 PM, Jim Choate (ravage(a)ssz.com) passed this wisdom: > >Forwarded message: > >> Subject: Re: Lock and Load >> Date: Mon, 22 Dec 97 17:59:49 -0500 >> From: "Brian B. Riley" <brianbr(a)together.net> > >> There are probably as many weapons where this is true as there where >> it is not. In general it makes most sense to check for safe condition >> before and after loading. > >Would you be so kind as to give a specific example of a bolt action, >semi-automatic, or automatic rifle that can't be loaded on safe? I have >never seen a rifle that wouldn't allow this. Remington Model 8 semi-automatic rifle (circa 1905-1930+) there is one (high three digit serial number made in 1906) chambered in .35 Remington on the wall about 30 feet from where I am sitting. It's safety is right side mounted and not only blocks the trigger but locks the bolt forward both internally and externally by blocking track for the bolt handle, it must be off to draw the bolt back to load the internal five round pushdown magazine. The design was based on the original Browning patent for a semi-automatic rifle. I remember through the years seeing at least three other weapons with similar mechanisms but I cannot recall make and model save that one of the was a Remington of 1920's vintage. >A parallel pistol example would be nice too, if you're so inclined. I don't know of any pistols .... except that in the case of the ubiquitous military .45 (1911A1) while one can easily insert a magazine with the gun on safe, it isn't truly loaded til a round is chambered which involves coming out of safe to rack the slide .... as far as I am concerned the only 'safe' safety on a .45 is the half-cock position. I have seen a number of malfunctions of the thumb safety and the grip safety as well as the barrel disconnect safety. In another message someone commented on not dropping a .45 with the hammer back ... I have a friend in NJ who commanded another platoon in my recon company in Nam. He jumped down off a parapet and his .45 bounced out of his flak jacket pocket and went off putting a large hole in his foot (for which he earned the nickname "Quick Draw"). It had been in 'condition 1' (full magazine inserted, round chambered, hammer at full cock, thumb safety on), but went off anyway. The armorer later said none of the parts seemed damaged or particularly worn, it just went off ... I am sure there's dozens more stories of loaded 45's going off when dropped. Brian B. Riley --> http://members.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men." -- Ayn Rand - The Fountainhead (1943)

1 0

Re: Best Cypherpunk long gun (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 23:34:51 -0700 > From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Re: Best Cypherpunk long gun > Were I to recommend one rifle to meet most needs, it would be some variant > of the AR-15, from Colt or Bushmaster or Olympic Arms, etc. About $800 for > a common variant. No need for a collapsible stock. This will handle social > needs from short range, to a few hundred yards (maybe more). > > There are those who recommend a cheaper SKS or AK-47 variant. I've never > owned one, so can't honestly comment. The concensus in rec.guns and > misc.survivalism seems to be that the AR shoots better and more accurately, > but the AK-47 is more forgiving of bad conditions, dirt, etc. Inasmuch as I > don't expect to be in the desert, or even any mud, I'll take the more > accurate piece. I would go for a HK 93 or G3 model myself w/ Zeiss 3x9 scope w/ some sort of laser designator for long range (> 200 yds.). Chambered in .308 and will give about a 4 to 6-in. group at 600 yds. from what I have seen - very handy for shooting throug 4 in. brick walls as well. Very accurate (a very popular sniper weapon) and more than forgiving with the environment. It's little brother the MP-5 pretty much owns the SWAT and similar sorts of jobs. A Desert Eagle chambered in .357 (you just *think* those .223 go through vests) would be my close in choice. Course you ain't gonna touch the HK for less than a few $k and the Desert Eagles are over $1k. > (The notion that the AR-15/M-16 "jams" is based on 35-year-old early > experiences in Viet Nam, using an early design and early ammo. The jamming > problems were fixed quickly, by changing the forward assist, changing the > ammo a little, and teaching soldiers how to properly clean the weapon.) Don't worry about it - go with a HK and you can fill the chamber with gunk and the next cycle of the blowback bolt system will clear it. Excellent all weather weapon. It'll even fire if un-oiled - not something you should do with a M16/AR15. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Re: Get your Anthrax shots
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Well I don't know about you Tim but my Doctors only know me as Mr. Cash. >:) How'd you pull that one off? All kinds of personal information, including your name, is included in medical records which the doctors have to keep up to date and reference. When you go in you'd have to give them your name. Now on the other hand I suppose you could go in, say you don't have insurance, give a fake name, and pay in cash always. It would still be trivial to ambush you at a scheduled doctor appointment. And I think Klintonkov has done a good job of discouraging privately funded medical care.

2 1

Re: Lock and Load (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: Lock and Load (fwd) > Date: Tue, 23 Dec 97 02:41:03 -0500 > From: "Brian B. Riley" <brianbr(a)together.net> > It was the first cicilian marketed semi-auto in the country This doesn't use a Mauser 1898 action does it? The top feed 5-round clip is my first clue... As to first semi-automatic in the country, I believe the Springfield 1903 has that particular honor. It used a Mauser '98 action also. It's also where .30-06 got the 06 from...also very popular in WW1 and used as a sniper rifle through Normandy, after which the Garand pretty much took over. > ... the > right hand safety can be operated and usually is by the thumb of the > right hand its a big flat lever with a good sized tab on it, just extend > the right thumb and push down. How can that work if the R. thumb is on the L. side of the gun while the safety is on the R. side of the gun? Your description leaves me with one of two mental images. Either my hand is off the trigger guard and I have a loaded and unsafed weapon or else I have to do some sort of finger gynmastics around the trigger guard in the same unsafed condition. Scares the be-jesus out of me...an errant twig could fire a round. > The magazine was a non removeable clip > that could only be loaded from the top, no stripper clips. The one > drawback to the weapon was it was a top eject and the it was said that > the ejecting shell distracted the eye of the shooter, personally I got > used to that within the first 100 round I fired with it. Yep, bet this is some sort of Mauser '98 action... > Merry Christmas to you too ... we here in Vermont are having a *very* > white Christmas already with more snow coming tonite and tomorrow ... We're supposed to get rain and more rain starting tomorrow. They say it might be clear on Christmas but the rain returns on Friday...;( Stay warm & thanks for the discussion. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Freedom Forum report on the State of the First Amendment
by The Sheriff 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Date: Sun, 21 Dec 1997 15:23:23 -0400 >To: David Honig <honig(a)otc.net> >From: The Sheriff <sheriff(a)speakeasy.org> >Subject: Re: Freedom Forum report on the State of the First Amendment >Cc: >Bcc: >X-Attachments: > >>Marc, you have declared how far you take freedom: you apparently >>believe it is proper for the government to intervene in private hiring >>decisions. Unfortunately many americans believe this intrusion is justified. > >I have to admit, at first I agreed with Marc, until I thought >about it for a minute. After all, to leave a people free is not >to leave them in chaos -- freedom comes with responsibility, >period. It doesn't have to be levied by a governmental body -- >there will allways be consequences when a free man makes a choice >or takes action in some way, be they good consequences or bad. > >After all, if the majority of the population of a free society >didn't have a problem with homosexuals, and yet Employer X fired >people because they were homosexual or friends with someone who >was, I get the sneaking suspicion that one of two things would >happen: > >1) Employer X's work force would eventually evaporate. > >2) Those who stuck with Employer X might soon find that > their boss doesn't discriminate solely against gays. > >In considering the position that employers have every right to >fire for whatever reason, I have decided that the firing of an >employee -- for whatever reason -- is, in itself, a form of >speech. "In terminating your employment and having you escorted >off the premesis effective immediately, we here at Corp X are >saying that all faggots suck." > >As such, who is to say that Employer X should be punished for >his views? Americans don't have a RIGHT to employment. That's >why people take their future into their own hands and become their >own employers, right? > > Best wishes and fresh-roasted peanut taste, The Sheriff. -- ***<REPLY TO: sheriff(a)speakeasy.org>*** - --- As kinky as it sounds, finger me to see my PGP key and confirm the signature attached to this message. - --- Any and all SPAM will be met with immediate prosecutory efforts. Solicitations are NOT welcome here! - --- ----BEGIN INFLAMATORY BLOCK---- Version: 160 (IQ) Comments: Definitely one of their greatest misses. Reporter: "Do you know what Public Enemy is?" - --- Citizen: "Public enemy?" [long pause] "Probably somebody in office." -----END INFLAMATORY BLOCK----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNJ+DYwBMw4+NR29ZAQEABQgAtc5fh8yastnBu6A6m2emw3PRj0rCUKwR s9n7myQm1KWOkb5lO44Vz+CoBdBblh5INezrLJ1O5Rspv+GBLygIhi71yM8k2QLc 8kYQ2cBgwCF+M8xUMKvkWB2dg3grEcv9AqZhl+1RCaOuiUvDeHb2T17glQ5sCjd7 p6eDU8ldMabcV6xmS4uoCTbyNH1SPp7j91h503xz/9oBjspMPKzTX1lF7KTnl+sP 8q91O+KUpnq+V88dp1AzgsZ1da+o5jBgXNLC8G2OcUpA4wlhbLc33FZb0S8if70D /NYCZZH6TL08glhxG4FKkL9FiOaSyJA/Ca2juipFlYL7I9quwT+Tbw== =jHny -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

New Presidential Crypto Advisor
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

22 December 1997, U.S. Newswire: Clinton Nominates Honigman Special Advisor to President Washington, Dec. 22 -- The President today announced the appointment of Steven S. Honigman as Special Advisor to the President. Mr. Honigman will bring senior level and government-wide leadership to the Administration's procurement of encryption technology and services. Mr. Honigman's responsibilities will include assuring that agency procurement policies, requirements, practices and programs are coordinated and consistent with Administration encryption policies. He will also coordinate agency encryption pilot projects and bring them to production, promote public-private standards development, and maintain a dialogue with the public about these efforts. His work will require consultation with all major Federal agencies, White House policy offices, the Congress, market participants, foreign entities and the private sector. Mr. Honigman has served since June 1993 as the General Counsel of the Navy. In that position, he has been the Department of the Navy's chief legal officer and the principal legal advisor to the Secretary of the Navy. As Navy General Counsel, he has been a leader in acquisition reform and procurement-related litigation. Mr. Honigman was born in Brooklyn, New York. He received his B.A. degree from New York University and his J.D. degree from Yale Law School. Mr. Honigman has practiced as a civil litigator in New York City. His areas of specialization included international and domestic reinsurance and insurance disputes, transactions and insolvencies. ----------

1 0

Re: Best Cypherpunk long gun (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1997 01:08:04 -0700 > From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Re: Best Cypherpunk long gun (fwd) > I can't agree that the HK 91 (the .308 version) is a popular sniper > weapon. Military and police snipers the world over differ strongly with you... Beside, it's the 93/G3 not the 91 (thought they do share a lot of commen base pieces) that is the sniper rifle. I believe you will also find that the .308 is the base caliber for all versions. Your wording above would indicate the 91 was .308 while the 93 was a different caliber, this is incorrect. Visit the H&K home page... > For sniper work, a bolt-action is by far the most popular piece. Really? Watch a few more of those silly police shows on at night. Pay particular attention to the long-term hostage episodes. I generaly see the break-in team carrying MP-5 or shortie M-16's. I have yet to see the backup or sniper team using a bolt-action. Learning base tactics is about the only thing these shows are good for. > I'm also skeptical about lasers, for daylight use. The three lasers I have > owned have been good for indoor use, but visibility outdoors during the day > is very poor. I only use them for long-range shots and it does require the scope to see the spot - the whole point really. The idea is the beam is of very low power at this point and doesn't stand out quite as bad as up close (the glowing red dot). > (IR lasers with IR night vision gear is another matter, but also another > price matter, too.) Bad news, the others guys IR/IIS will spot you in a heart-beat, never use a laser at nite, it's like tracers - they work both ways. You want to stick with a strictly 3rd generation passive IR/IIS. Remember, we're counter-sniping at this point... ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

4 3

Our Special Gift to You...
by 13071300＠13488.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is a Killer Guest Area filled with the hottest XXX action on the net. See it NOW for FREE... http://www.fleshgrotto.com/guests/ We feature Streaming XXX videos, LIVE feeds, huge XXX galleries, adult toys, imports, and much more!!! Our LIVE CyberSex can't be beat, see the Newest Blondes in our stable.. Ashley and Brianna. Come see how the latest in technological wizardry can make hardcore XXX action EXPLODE on your screen. No other site gives their guests so much... Check It Out. http://www.fleshgrotto.com/guests/

1 0

Re: Lock and Load (fwd)
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 12/23/97 3:52 AM, Jim Choate (ravage(a)ssz.com) passed this wisdom: >As to first semi-automatic in the country, I believe the >Springfield 1903 Uhhhh ... 03 Springfield is a bolt action .... Rem Mod 8 is Browning semi-auto action essentially recoil operated with the barrel inside a sleeve surrounded by a spring whihc recoiled back with the bolt as well. The barrel spring had a stiffer constant than the bolt spring so it strated forward frist effecting the separation of bolt and reciever and stripping the round out straight up. It was designed in 1903 and first manufactured in 1905. It was, as I said, the first semi-auto marketed to the *civilian* market. There were other semi-auto's but were all military weapons. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNJ/mRT7r4fUXwraZAQFiGwf+M6v+VX3p9Bx9CnsmJYJJnjx0S/2IxxUT iVWlexWiDhxlAJMQnzXEUfoSVHQRtwkmrX+SH5qDxdBodFqBj7ctDJHp8/sBDZS+ uxqo4LNhm0XeSP64+P+sb25fJkDAZSWR2j/VcjMG7MxZ3CvGHsW5jxVuKvAAkVIg d9+0IgzENEcdyS5JuHF3fCQWSPcvo+tB4cweYFGbLXRBtAe5HojHYuBoeGnKMqAP GLjwaRzcNa4RkherYGV0Irpfdz5x+DIvgj2PRu57bPrDIKddUytGW11+eu3cXZKK Am/+dgPLlDpero9V9LB6Tg0i6oVCR/4WXyuCch8pnvVGwDLY59/8qQ== =qA6z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Brian B. Riley --> http://members.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "The ultimate consequence of protecting men from the results of their own folly is to fill the world with fools." -- Herbert Spencer

1 0

Re: Accountability and Traceless Remailers
by Charlie Comsec 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- politas(a)dynamite.com.au (Politas) wrote: > >Then what's the point of going to all the trouble of tracking someone down if > >you're unwilling or unable to take appropriate legal action against him > >after he's found? > > Well, you don't (can't) know that until you find the responsible person, > can you? You're missing the point. You would have already made that decision before you started the ball rolling. By your own scenario, you'd already have filed a court case and presented PROBABLE CAUSE that the law had been violated in order to convince a judge to start issuing subpoenas, etc. Do you really think the legal systems of several sovreign countries would go to all this effort to identify a person that you only *MIGHT* want to sue? If you caused all this expense and then decided not to sue, they'd be well justified in BILLING YOU for all the costs incurred. Short of an outright criminal act where the government intervenes and prosecutes, in most civil cases it's customary for the accuser (plaintiff) to pay all of the costs in advance, then attempt to collect them from the defendant. If you file a frivolous case, then later drop it, you're still stuck with paying the fees. What's more, if you do all that, the person you tracked down (but never proved any wrongdoing against) would have a perfect case to countersue you for invasion of privacy. > >I don't recall ever saying that. How do you run a person out of > >an unmoderated NG? > > By continually posting attacks and offensive material under different > nyms. If you're easily offended, then an unmoderated usenet NG is not the place for you. I don't think you could ever enact enough laws to force people to be nice to each other. > >Nor do I understand the "who refuses to be killfilable" part, either. How can > >someone you don't even know control your killfile? > > If someone keeps changing their nym, it is impossible to killfile them. Then your beef is with ISPs like Netcom and AOL, not the remailers. AOLers can change screen names at will, and Netcom subscribers are free to put just about anything in the From: line that they choose to. I'm just citing two examples. The vast majority of the people giving usenet a bad name are doing so with non-anonymous accounts at ISPs that couldn't care less what their users say or do. As I said before, just visit some of the usenet NGs where people are being called "pedophiles" by people posting under their own user IDs from well known ISPs. That's about as clear-cut case of libel as you're going to get (unless everyone so accused really is a pedophile) and yet I'll bet that if I complained to the ISPs that nothing would be done. I have no reason to do so, but it's hard to believe that somebody hasn't complained by now, and yet the flamers still have their accounts. If the present system is incapable of dealing with identifiable offenders, why worry about the few anonymous ones among them? Presumably if you track an anonymous poster down to an account at one of these ISPs, you'll be no better off than with those who now do the same thing openly. You've also now switched the subject from arguably illegal behavior to that which is merely annoying. I'm not even sure that accusing a person of child molestation in the context of an ongoing flame battle constitutes a winnable case of libel, but it's the closest I can come. > It doesn't stop you calling the police, it just stops them being able to > do anything. That's still your decision. But if the person isn't "worth suing" by whatever standards you use, then it doesn't matter whether he's anonymous or not. > >Using a remailer does not make a person unidentifiable, just untraceable. > >There is a difference. > > What?????? How can I identify an anonymous poster if I can't trace > them? How can I use their posts as evidence if there is no way to trace > those posts back to them? That's like saying that you can't identify a masked bank robber just because you didn't see him drive up and happen to take down his license number. Bank robbers are convicted all the time, even if they couldn't be identified at the scene. They were overheard planning the crime before hand. They were caught bragging about it afterwards. They were caught spending the stolen money. A few stupid ones even visited the bank again without a mask to transact normal business and a teller recognized their voice. Thus, it is possible to deter and prosecute bank robbers without fingerprinting everyone who merely walks into the bank. > >Banks are a poor analogy, because anonymity is more analogous to paying cash. > >When you sign your name to a check, you're already identifying yourself. > >Banking is an inherently identity-based institution. You're asking someone > >to trust you, and it's up to you to prove yourself to be trustworthy. > > Email and news postings are also inherently identity-based. You'd like them to be, but they aren't. > >A check is made valuable or worthless by virtue of the validity of its > >signature. Ideas can be evaluated on their own merit, just like paper > >currency can. I don't need to see two forms of ID to determine whether that > >$100 bill you just handed me is genuine or counterfeit. > > Look, you were saying that remailers storing ID information is treating > people like criminals, and is unacceptable. No, I'm saying that FORCING remailer operators to collect this information from their users is unacceptable. The banks are doing what they believe to be in their own best interests, just as the remailers are. > I am saying that it is > obviously acceptable for other institutions providing services to store > a lot more information. You aren't saying that banks are behaving > unacceptably in storing ID information, so why is it unacceptable for a > remailer to store far less information? What you're proposing is like refusing cash and requiring that people pay via traceable check. I'm proposing giving people the option of doing either. If you don't want to accept cash in payment, nobody will force you to. But don't impose that rule on everyone else. > >The solution being what? Surrendering freedom for the sake of supposed > >security? I don't see that there is necessarily a dilemma between protecting > >victims versus preserving the freedoms of average citizens. > > Anonymity is not a right. It is a privilege that can be granted by a > person in a position to do so. It is a privilege that should be able to > be taken away if it is abused. Under Australian law, perhaps, but not US. We have a "Bill of Rights" here, not a "list of optional privileges". Our Supreme Court has already ruled that anonymous speech is protected under the First Amendment to our constitution. Yes, free speech can be revoked if it's misused, but that's only AFTER an offense has occurred and a proper restraining order has been obtained. What you're proposing requires a breach of one's privacy BEFORE any law has been broken. > >It seems that every solution I offer Politas' is countered with a "yeah, but > >what about .... " objection. In an imperfect world, government cannot > >completely protect people from themselves. > > Society is all about protecting people from others, not themselves. Maybe Australia didn't experiment with such things as Prohibition, then. > >I'm really trying to understand what Politas' wants, but it's difficult. I've > >suggested several solutions to his hypothetical problems that don't infringe > >on the freedoms of the innocent, but each is quickly rejected. > > All your solutions involve the victim suffering for the acts of the > perpetrator. That is hardly justice. Neither is the alternative. You don't punish a person until AFTER he's been convicted. You say "anonymity is a privilege", but your proposal doesn't even allow that. How can I be ANONYMOUS if I have to IDENTIFY myself first? I'd lose the privilege before I even received it. If I have to tell somebody who I am, then I'm not anonymous. > What I want is accountability. If you are doing something wrong, you > should be accountable for it. It is an underlying thread to all systems > of justice. In most free countries, the burden of proof is on the accuser. What you're proposing is like demanding that since you feel that your neighbor is a "suspicious character", he ought to be required to wear an electronic device at all times so that *IF* he should do something wrong, he can be traced. That technology exists, but it's only used after a person has been convicted and is then released on probation or parole. There's nothing in your scenario that couldn't be put in place AFTER you'd shown probable cause that a law was being broken via a remailer. The picture that both you and Gary have painted is of a repeated pattern of offenses. If you could demonstrate that the law was being broken, you could get the proper courts to order that this tracing be instituted, for a limited period of time, until the culprit was caught or the wrongdoing ended. Why subject all remailer users to this in advance just in case something MIGHT happen? BTW, I'm not endorsing this compromise idea, just pointing out that less onerous measures exist than what you're suggesting. > Your solutions are the equivalent of saying, "Well, if you don't go into > that part of town, you won't get mugged again." You're changing the scenario. It's more like going into a country where Australians are unpopular and being called names. You have your choice of returning to that country or not. Usenet is not in such a state that when somebody calls you names on the playground you can call in a NetCop to make those mean kids stop calling you names. Even under you proposal, I doubt that you'd find a single country where remailers are allowed to operate that would force a remailer operator to violate a user's privacy over a usenet flame attack. If you wander into a NG where someone doesn't like you, you can either stick around and defend yourself, flame the person back, or move along. Now what sort of usenet "mugging" did you have in mind that you think ALL the governments under which remailers operate would be willing to exert their legal clout to identify and prosecute the perpetrator? Can you cite one example, perhaps, of a real case in which your proposal would have been effective? - ---- Finger <comsec(a)nym.alias.net> for PGP public key (Key ID=19BE8B0D) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNJ/C2Abp0h8ZvosNAQGUTwf9FEwJBEjD6HZsYXAaKzTKJMeVOUYoK7z2 /zEU9jNpCrdCO2Fm3TryB7nXHiJyV2HlqUHijgnoYGQsJBeTIKqtpIMG60z4Oi6F THH9ke2bhQmfhkAgWHEZpjj7873mpL50r5lmBrSnwuBkUPejAa3JGR5XFLY4mHau Rxcl+41vyW4YA6AN2IT7F/JFe1YBQLc/i6jgI01ATzEKtRxg0sOfOxiceRm5J6ke CQhmb2ISG2yWetZFH6CY1vslz+6j/bTG9nPGc31LhfPSqLMFKNjlPsuiA11K6Un1 +9bofYFXm/HGvxqqmi4pKnV/D0eSYpUqb2krO+EIdOZaVhv5L9HJHA== =Rl46 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Best Cypherpunk long gun
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 12/23/97 2:41 AM, landon dyer (landon(a)best.com) passed this wisdom: >At 10:11 PM 12/22/97 -0800, you wrote: >> >>What is the best long gun for a Cypherpunk? > >A Solothurn, natch. For those who don't know: A circa 1938 20mm >anti-tank rifle; be sure to get the high power telescopic sight. >Why screw around? >:-) Is that the one that looks exactly like a BAR on steroids? Huge box magazine held 8 or 10 rounds and humungous bipod and huge recoil pad on the butt. I always wondered what kind of mutant it would take to shoulder fire that thing! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNJ/hzD7r4fUXwraZAQGjpQf/QZXGup88+GlhhEF2SV+sJRj4/GSLFmlI PWmchPmfEyifJSJI+8oQIj/IzTkbGf/Mj7H50/txndkR9UXEKmfZ7I8y4H2dlX/k Wc4g4mx3tCSmsWctOA9lN3NWWHs7agNHxdHqsZfYiLSlF191dyl7r0Aw+D7wBwKm VxlJsvrwsC7wZMNbJYoe2PJOTpTL924HYW0v4uL7mJ5EIPykWnhmhEXFksvGvzTE 8fyPW9VZjxjLLpGL4CVAN2xbeIN4PoA9bOkI85aKc+mHKvjqJg6/VZ7sfJcgoT12 ULBsd+7yMERS5dcZGLvXsStIHJarQrYuyTRY5teeScSi4XwUFmUjcA== =sqI1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Brian B. Riley --> http://members.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "The reason worry kills more people than work is that more people worry than work" -- Robert Frost (1874-1963)

1 0

Re: Lock and Load (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: Lock and Load (fwd) > Date: Tue, 23 Dec 97 11:27:11 -0500 > From: "Brian B. Riley" <brianbr(a)together.net> > >As to first semi-automatic in the country, I believe the > >Springfield 1903 > > Uhhhh ... 03 Springfield is a bolt action .... True enough. > up. It was designed in 1903 and first manufactured in 1905. It was, as > I said, the first semi-auto marketed to the *civilian* market. There > were other semi-auto's but were all military weapons. There wasn't a distinction until the 1920's when the various 'gat' laws because of gangsters, rum runners and such came into play. I have a friend who is a gun collector. I 'll see if he happens to have one. I wanna see this safety... Merry Christmas! ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make | | violent revolution inevitable. | | | | John F. Kennedy | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:11 PM 12/22/97 -0800, you wrote: >What is the best long gun for a Cypherpunk? > > You didn't say if you were interested in a trophy or just filling the freezer nor if you would be in open country or in the bush. A good all around choice would be one of the medium power thirty caliber cartridges. It would be prudent to use ammunition lo! aded with well constructed bullets because some Cypherpunks are thick skinned, particularly those with law degrees. LongPigMuncher

2 1

Re: SPECIAL REPORT: Censorware in the Stacks Re: SPECIAL REPORT: Censorware in the Stacks
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Colin Rafferty writes: > > Tim May writes: > > When the state-as-sovereign sets up libraries that don't carry Everything > > (hint: and not even the LOC carries everything), then the choices it makes > > can be seen by some to be First Amendment violations. > > This is not a First Amendment violation. > > The government is not required to promote all speech, but only to not > restrict it. Selection of books for a library does not abdridge freedom > of speech, since the act of not selecting does not reduce speech. > > Modifying the content of the selected books would be an infriging act, > since that is a reduction. > > They cannot subscribe to Playboy and then put pasties on the nipples. > Nor can they subscribe to the Internet and then filter it. And the difference between `selecting' which books to acquire for the library and `selecting' which web pages to receive is what? Those pages `not selected' by the Internet filter are not `reduced' any more than the `not selected' books. There is no consistent application of principle in your arguments. > > A better solution is to get Government out of the business of running > > libraries or providing Net access. > > I fail to see how this will solve anything. Then rub a couple of neurons together and see if you can generate a spark. If the government isn't in the business of either `selecting' books or internet pages, then there is no `selecting' to be done in either case and therefore nothing to be solved. -Frondeur

1 0

Parks and Guns
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've seen a couple of comments about my point about state-run parks not allowing guns in, which would seem to be an interesting case of the state limiting Second Amendment rights on territory it controlled. (I won't push this much further, as the state may also limit firearms in courthouses, in Federal buildings, and so on. Jusitifiably, I might add. But this does make the point that the state-as-employer or state-as-property-manager may do things that seem to directly limit constitutional rights.) Anyway, several comments have focussed on _little_ parks, those little patches of grass and winos and spent syringes in the nation's cities. What I was talking about were the biggies, like the Forest of Nisene Marks, right next to my house, starting on the ridge on the other side of the valley from me. Tens of thousands of acres....hundreds of miles of hiking and biking trails. Get caught with a gun in that park and face jail time. Of course, hikers and bicyclists sometimes get mugged, raped, and murdered in this park, so carrying a gun in one's fanny pack makes a lot of sense. "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6," as the famous saying goes. Interestingly for newcomers to the list, it was putting out this piece of common sense opinion that got me a threatening phone call from the Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office in the summer of 1995. Seems that someone read my opinions and contacted the authorities...a Sheriff's Deputy called to warn me that my opinion verged on the illegal (oh yeah?) and that he might send a "vehicle" out to my place to have a chat with me and check out my state of mind. When I said something along the lines of, "Fine, but call in advance, so I'll know it's your boy," he flipped out, started furiously typing on a keyboard (I could hear it), and said something like "That comment has been entered in your file as a threat against a law enforcement officer." At that point I told him that there was then no point in talking to him further, if my truthful comments were to be declared "threats." (I guess, as some have argued here recently, I was supposed to have said something like, "Thank you, officer, for pointing out the error of my opinion that hikers and bicyclists ought to take steps to defend themselves. I understand now that weapons are not to be owned or carried by citizen-units, and that a woman facing rapists on a mountain trail should simply dial 9-1-1 at the nearest payphone and wait for the police to arrive. I am sorry I expressed an opinion in these Beknighted States.") --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Freedom Forum report on the State of the First Amendment
by David Honig 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:55 PM 12/23/97 -0500, Colin Rafferty wrote: >William H Geiger writes: >> In <ocryb1c2i2u.fsf(a)ml.com>, on 12/23/97 at 10:30 AM, Colin Rafferty <craffert(a)ml.com> said: >>> Paul Bradley writes: > >>>> Should the government be able to take action against me because I fire >>>> someone for being jewish/black/homosexual??? > >>> Welcome to the 20th Century, moron. > >> Really amazing how many so-called "freedom fighters" become STATIST if the >> proper buttons are pushed. > >What are you talking about? > >Freedom of expression is not the same as freedom of oppression. You aren't being oppressed the other party doesn't want to interact with you, unless that party is government providing base services to all (e.g. police/courts/border protection). You *are* being oppressed if mutually consensual behavior is interfered with by others including the State. You *are* being oppressed if you are coerced into a relationship you don't want. An employer-employee relationship is like a marriage or any other arrangement between adults -mutually consensual. Colin, do you consider yourself oppressed when someone choses not to date you? What about a rejection by someone who takes out a public advertisement in the paper? Freedom is only tested when it hurts. ------------------------------------------------------------ David Honig Orbit Technology honig(a)otc.net Intaanetto Jigyoubu "Windows 95 is a technologically complex product that is best left alone by the government..." ---MSFT Atty B. Smith

1 0

Re: Freedom Forum report on the State of the First Amendment
by Colin Rafferty 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David Honig writes: > At 12:55 PM 12/23/97 -0500, Colin Rafferty wrote: >> William H Geiger writes: >>> In <ocryb1c2i2u.fsf(a)ml.com>, on 12/23/97 at 10:30 AM, Colin Rafferty <craffert(a)ml.com> said: >>>> Paul Bradley writes: >> >>>>> Should the government be able to take action against me because I fire >>>>> someone for being jewish/black/homosexual??? >> >>>> Welcome to the 20th Century, moron. >> >>> Really amazing how many so-called "freedom fighters" become STATIST if the >>> proper buttons are pushed. >> >> What are you talking about? >> >> Freedom of expression is not the same as freedom of oppression. > You aren't being oppressed the other party doesn't want to interact > with you, unless that party is government providing base services to all > (e.g. police/courts/border protection). Actually, you can be. > You *are* being oppressed if mutually consensual behavior is interfered > with by > others including the State. > You *are* being oppressed if you are coerced into a relationship you don't > want. You are not being coerced into anything. If you don't want to serve food to Blacks, don't open a restaurant. It's your choice. By the way, you are also not allowed to dump toxic waste in your own backyard. Are you being oppressed? > An employer-employee relationship is like a marriage or any other arrangement > between adults -mutually consensual. In a fantasy world, it is mutually consensual. It the real world, it is seldom mutual. > Colin, do you consider > yourself oppressed when someone choses not to date you? What about > a rejection by someone who takes out a public advertisement in the paper? Nope. Of course, this has nothing to do with anything. > Freedom is only tested when it hurts. With freedom comes responsibility. Decency is one of them. -- Colin

3 2

Re: Freedom Forum report on the State of the First Amendment
by Colin Rafferty 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lizard writes: > At 12:55 PM 12/23/97 -0500, Colin Rafferty wrote: >> Freedom of expression is not the same as freedom of oppression. > How is someone 'oppressed' by my choosing not to deal with him for some > reasons, but not for other reasons? Either way, he does not get my services. > I refuse to hire you because you are black -- you are oppressed. > I refuse to hire you because you're an Aquarius and my astrologer told me > not to hire Aquarians -- you are not oppressed. > I refuse to hire you because you're a Republican and I'm a Democrat, and I > don't think we'll work well together -- you are not oppressed. > But in all cases, you are not hired. > Explain the logic of this to me. The logic is about patterns of discrimination of society and the State acting as a social engineer to remove the patterns. It is about basic human decency, and giving a person a fighting chance. If society, in general, discriminated against people with freckles, it is likely that it would be made illegal. > (Yes, it is perfectly legal to not hire someone based on star sign, > political affiliation, or having freckles.) > No human being has a right to compel service from another human being. No majority group has a right to discriminate against a minority. You prove that you know The Truth, and I'll prove that I know The Truth. > If I > do not wish to engage in trade with you, that's my right. Would you be less > oppressed if I just closed up shop and refused to trade with ANYONE? Oppression is done by a society. It can only be stopped by acting against the individuals in the society that are doing the oppressing. > The issue here is not expression, but association. That's a good point. However, the alternate doesn't have the same rhythm: Freedom of association is not the same as freedom of oppression. -- Colin

6 6

[Off topic]Discrimination
by Lizard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:25 PM 12/23/97 -0500, Colin Rafferty wrote: > >The logic is about patterns of discrimination of society and the State >acting as a social engineer to remove the patterns. In other words, rights belong to the collective, not to the individual. If I deny Joe Smith a job for an 'approved' reason (which still has nothing to do with his competence), then, too bad for Joe. But if I deny it for an 'unapproved' reason, equally unrelated to his competance, then I am denying the job to ALL people who share that trait, everywhere. That's a collectivist viewpoint. Either a person -- a single, unique, individual -- has a right to compel someone else to serve him, or he does not. The reasons for denying service are irrelevant TO THAT INDIVIDUAL. >It is about basic human decency, and giving a person a fighting chance. All of which is fine, but why should it be compelled? Didn't you once say that liberalism made the assumption that we were basically moral and should be free to act, rather than the conservative view that we were basically immoral and should be restrained? >If society, in general, discriminated against people with freckles, it >is likely that it would be made illegal. So what good does this do the person dicriminated against, if there is NOT a 'pattern' of it? He's still out of a job. This is the key point:It is the INDIVIDUAL that matters. >> (Yes, it is perfectly legal to not hire someone based on star sign, >> political affiliation, or having freckles.) > >> No human being has a right to compel service from another human being. > >No majority group has a right to discriminate against a minority. There are no groups. There are only individuals. A job, or an offer of goods or services, occurs between individuals -- not groups. If I am denied employment, YOUR bank account does not shrink. If you are granted a high paying job, I do not get rich. My hunger is not yours;yours is not mine. Further, every individual has a right to choose who they will and will not associate with, based on whatever criteria they wish. I don't date mundanes (non-fen). While the inability to have me as a boyfriend is no great loss, I am nonetheless 'discriminating' against a large %age of the female population (and 100% of the male population, FWIW). (Granted, a far larger %age of the female population discriminates against me, as they refuse to date overweight, unattractive, socially inept nerds. Whom do I sue?) > >Freedom of association is not the same as freedom of oppression. > Most people would claim not associating with me is liberating, not oppressing. How is person 'a' oppressed because person 'b' decides, for whatever reason, not to like them?

1 0

[fs] Contemporary Cryptology Book
by travish+cp-01＠dejanews.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I found this at a local half-price bookstore. I purchased a copy for myself and was wondering if any of you wanted one. I do not intend to make any money off of this, I am simply doing it as a favor for fellow crypto-enthusiasts. I believe it would make an excellent companion to "Applied Cryptography". The tone is what you would expect from IEEE Press; more theoretical than A.C., not shying away from the discrete mathematics but without losing sight of the subject, either. There is some mention of the uses of cryptography applications like tamperproofing nuclear monitoring equipment, and other relatively cool stuff. It is apparently a brand new, undamaged book, sold for half price, or about $45. I'll sell it for what I will pay, plus s/h (your choice of carriers), plus COD charge if not prepaid. It is on hold for me until Saturday, so email me soon if you're interested. Here is the original blurb: http://www.ieee.org/ieeestore/compbk.html#pc2717 > An all-in-one guide to the science of information integrity... > > Contemporary Cryptology: The Science of Information Integrity > > edited by Gustavus J. Simmons, Sandia National Labs Albuquerque, NM > > This original source book covers all aspects of the subject with > emphasis on the cryptographic elements. In addition to being an > introductory guide to the latest developments, this volume provides > the engineer and scientist with algorithms, protocols, and applications. > > Copyright 1992/Hardcover/656pp > List Price: $89.95 > Member Price: $77.00 > IEEE Order No. PC2717-QAJ > ISBN 0-87942-277-7 -- Travis Hassloch / travish(a)dejanews.com / http://www.dejanews.com Deja News System Defenestration Group / "When news breaks... we fix it" PGP key C7FDD3D5 fgpt 7A 48 DD 46 E6 7F 11 E7 8F 7E 53 9A DF 33 9E FA

1 0

Re: Freedom Forum report on the State of the First Amendment
by David Honig 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:37 PM 12/23/97 -0500, Colin Rafferty wrote: > >You are not being coerced into anything. If you don't want to serve >food to Blacks, don't open a restaurant. It's your choice. Where do you get the right to tell others how they can make a living? >By the way, you are also not allowed to dump toxic waste in your own >backyard. Are you being oppressed? I am not allowed to place toxic waste, or noise, where it can affect others; I can ingest toxins privately and listen to whatever music I like so long as you don't detect it in your backyard. >> An employer-employee relationship is like a marriage or any other arrangement >> between adults -mutually consensual. > >In a fantasy world, it is mutually consensual. It the real world, it is >seldom mutual. You prefer a shotgun or otherwise arranged marriage? >>> Colin, do you consider >> yourself oppressed when someone choses not to date you? What about >> a rejection by someone who takes out a public advertisement in the paper? > >Nope. Of course, this has nothing to do with anything. Private behavior is private behavior, and trade is a private behavior. >> Freedom is only tested when it hurts. > >With freedom comes responsibility. Decency is one of them. > >-- >Colin But obligate decency at gunpoint is not worth it. ------------------------------------------------------------ David Honig Orbit Technology honig(a)otc.net Intaanetto Jigyoubu "Windows 95 is a technologically complex product that is best left alone by the government..." ---MSFT Atty B. Smith

2 1