December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <199701260712.XAA10405(a)toad.com>, on 01/25/97 at 11:03 PM, Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> said: + I fail to see how any supposedly intelligent members of the +CypherPunks list can possibly be content to fall for the line, + "Bend over, baby. I'm only going to moderate you 'a little bit'." attila sez: no matter if one perceives the "need" for a moderator or not, I find it hard to accept --even to eliminate the grossly obscene attacks by a few members against other members. I wonder if we need a 'childish' excluder? I question how Sandy can accept the job as moderator, passing judgement on 100-300 messages per day. just trimming spam is questionable: what is spam? flames: what draws the line at flames: personal attacks? profanity? politically [in]correct speach? historical revisionism? and, I think cypherpunks is setting an atrocious example of our own narrow mindedness (creditable or not) when we sanction any filtering of what we see --is this not **exactly** what we accuse the controlled media of determining what is "fit to print?" unfortunately, we are demonstrating to our critics that a) net anarchy does not work b) cyberlibertarianism breeds anarchy c) we're loose cannons on the deck d) we are not civilized enough to warrant respect and this can go on and on and on... But, the minute we, as a group, start to tell other members of the group to 'clean up your act' we are violating the principal "ethic" which we claim: freedom. sure, we can claim we are entitled to total libertarianism, or anarchy; but there is a responsibility to create a workable, cooperative social order, if for no other reason than protecting us in the wilderness, or feeding us, or clothing us. anyone here wish to return to survivalist modes of a head of household 200 years ago? we can have pure communism, the LDS Brotherhood, the Shaker house, or even true anarchy where you may do anything you wish as long as it does not infringe on the rights or property of another. --catch22: just how do set the laws on limits, and how do you enforce the limits if you have voted to dissolve all 'government' and 'police?' when basic human ambition to better oneself is literally killed... good luck, Sandy; make sure you pull a sanity check everyday when you start and finish the onerous task! == "you may not be next, you may not be last, but you are too late to have been first. --attila -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBMusMbr04kQrCC2kFAQFXYgP/aK2vEs0skEaYNbwWiDXS+GcYKIRJ52/c y87akjVm/d1U+LDheHN0cvFxHiMCNRCIJKKa7hHNr3AYDXzJtehthP/pi+L5NPTD kYY58tUFy0p/t0hN4vze4i0wnxkymAVCnIVNkfGyAGwXytCxCmPUCHcV5ZzlYcI+ jrXv2nuBsos= =ZTbB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 4

Re: Corelation
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Sat, 25 Jan 1997, Toto wrote: > Has anyone actually 'seen' John Gilmore, lately? Since there > have been a number of postings indicating that the writer > 'used to respect' Gilmore, I am wondering if perhaps this > moderation experiment is not actually an attempt by someone > to discredit him. Well I saw John last night at the C2Net party, but I guess that's not much reassurance. :-) S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: overview.htm (fwd)
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Dale Thorn wrote: > > My point about the antibiotics is that the male gays take a dis- > > proportionate amount of them, which compounds their problems. > Why do they take antibiotics? Just curious. Both male homosexuals and IV drug-users have always suffered from an inordinate amount of infections, etc., because they are engaging in physical behavior that Mother Nature had not anticipated, since the behavior fulfills more of a psychological need than a physical one. Perhaps Mother Nature is homophobic and anti-drug, but, at any rate, she did not design the butt-hole to allow virus-free insertion of outside objects, nor blood-veins to be pierced regularly in order to insert condensed chemical combinations. As a result, those who engage in these behaviors have always had to deal with the physical effects which result from Nature's 'error'. IV drug users have always had high incidences of jaundice, etc., while male homosexuals have had to contend with various forms of venereal disease, etc. In both cases, they end up in a continuing cycle of antibiotic use. > Also, I haven't heard that antibiotics were bad for immune system, > has that been proven? There has been great concern raised among those in the medical profession regarding the end-effects of their wholesale prescribing of anitbiotics for colds, aches and pains, etc., leading to the development of new strains of virus which are immune to the older antibiotics. This leads to development of stronger (misused) antibiotics, which then leads to stronger strains of virus. There have been a number of studies which point to the fact that the human immune system is now caught in a battle between increasingly potent virus and antibiotics and is losing its capacity to fight its 'natural' enemies. Humans tend to base their 'judgements' on psychological critera. Thus someone who puts a quart of scotch in their system every day can turn around and call someone who is putting outside objects into their butt-hole a 'pervert' who is doing 'unnatural' things to their body. Personally, I prefer to kill two birds with one stone, so I put a quart of scotch up my butt-hole every day. Toto > - Igor.

1 0

Ultimate Flames List
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn wrote: > My point about the antibiotics is that the male gays take a dis- > proportionate amount of them, which compounds their problems. It > suggests to me that the immune system is already seriously debilitated > or damaged before AIDS can take hold, rather than the notion that a > healthy person can get it from the virii alone. It has been suggested that disease is merely an attempt by Nature to 'moderate' the species. One could make a strong case for Nature merely 'sorting' individuals into physical lists, one of which is her own 'flames' list. It remains to be seen whether Nature also plans on dropping the 'flames' list after her moderation experiment is over. Toto

1 0

Re: overview.htm (fwd)
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn wrote: > Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > > > Dale's hypothesis seems at odds with the linkage of aids and blood > > transfusion and transmission through needles. > > Nurses who contract aids through contaminated needles do not, > > normally, have devastated immune systems. > It seems to me that "proof" of someone acquiring AIDS from one stab > with a contaminated needle is a very nebulous thing. As far as nurses > go, the contact I've had with many of them tells me they are also > (on average) drug users extraordinaire. Nurses have free access to all types of antibiotics and high-inducing drugs, and a good many of them are regular users of both. Hospitals are notoriously bad places for healthy people to go, as many go in with little diseases and come out with big diseases (for which they are often re-hospitalized). Also, outward appearances rarely have a whole lot to do with indications of a superior auto-immune system. Plants have been bred to 'look pretty' for the consumer, so we now have unblemished food stuffs which require huge applications of poisonous chemicals in order to survive, because they have lost their natural ability to defend themselves against even ordinary plant pests and diseases. Toto

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <199701260712.XAA10405(a)toad.com>, on 01/25/97 at 11:03 PM, Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> said: + I fail to see how any supposedly intelligent members of the +CypherPunks list can possibly be content to fall for the line, + "Bend over, baby. I'm only going to moderate you 'a little bit'." attila sez: no matter if one perceives the "need" for a moderator or not, I find it hard to accept --even to eliminate the grossly obscene attacks by a few members against other members. I wonder if we need a 'childish' excluder? I question how Sandy can accept the job as moderator, passing judgement on 100-300 messages per day. just trimming spam is questionable: what is spam? flames: what draws the line at flames: personal attacks? profanity? politically [in]correct speach? historical revisionism? and, I think cypherpunks is setting an atrocious example of our own narrow mindedness (creditable or not) when we sanction any filtering of what we see --is this not **exactly** what we accuse the controlled media of determining what is "fit to print?" unfortunately, we are demonstrating to our critics that a) net anarchy does not work b) cyberlibertarianism breeds anarchy c) we're loose cannons on the deck d) we are not civilized enough to warrant respect and this can go on and on and on... But, the minute we, as a group, start to tell other members of the group to 'clean up your act' we are violating the principal "ethic" which we claim: freedom. sure, we can claim we are entitled to total libertarianism, or anarchy; but there is a responsibility to create a workable, cooperative social order, if for no other reason than protecting us in the wilderness, or feeding us, or clothing us. anyone here wish to return to survivalist modes of a head of household 200 years ago? we can have pure communism, the LDS Brotherhood, the Shaker house, or even true anarchy where you may do anything you wish as long as it does not infringe on the rights or property of another. --catch22: just how do set the laws on limits, and how do you enforce the limits if you have voted to dissolve all 'government' and 'police?' when basic human ambition to better oneself is literally killed... good luck, Sandy; make sure you pull a sanity check everyday when you start and finish the onerous task! == "you may not be next, you may not be last, but you are too late to have been first. --attila -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBMusMbr04kQrCC2kFAQFXYgP/aK2vEs0skEaYNbwWiDXS+GcYKIRJ52/c y87akjVm/d1U+LDheHN0cvFxHiMCNRCIJKKa7hHNr3AYDXzJtehthP/pi+L5NPTD kYY58tUFy0p/t0hN4vze4i0wnxkymAVCnIVNkfGyAGwXytCxCmPUCHcV5ZzlYcI+ jrXv2nuBsos= =ZTbB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RE: Fighting the cybercensor
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Toto and Jim Choate were having a little disagreement about the rights of nations to maintain the boundaries of ignorance around their "citizenry", and Jim said that no one outside a nation's boundaries should feel moved to interfere with the program: > 'We' shouldn't, it is their own country and it is up to their populace to > stop it. Do you really want Singapore or China having a say in how we run > our web? I certainly don't, and won't support any move to force any > particular view on them. ............................................................ Normally, I would agree that people who choose to live within a certain locale and choose the kind of government that they will live with and the kind of policies that they will accept as impositions upon their lives, should be allowed to "enjoy the fruits of their labors". But on further examination of the situation in 'foreign' countries, these things must be realized: . Individuals do not agree with each other 100% . Individuals living within the boundaries of a nation will not agree with each other 100% about the kind of government they should have . Many of the individuals living within the boundaries of *any* nation do not have 100% control over which policies, or the quality of them, they will have to live under . It is not uncommon for "leaders" of nations to take advantage of their position to benefit more from the contributions of their citizenry than vice versa (the citizenry benefitting from their leadership) . It is not uncommon for there to be proportionately more people in favor of living in a state of dependence than not; and it is not uncommon for those who favor dependence to favor proposals which seem to put them on the receiving end of "benefits" (versus being contributors); and it is not uncommon for these "benefits" to be derived at the expense of such virtues as freedom and liberty . Many individuals reside within a nation not because they favor its po litics, but because they feel more comfortable among their own kind than with strangers elsewhere - for example, Chinese who have lived in China all their lives (and whose ancestral roots are there) will wish to stay there and do what they can within the boundaries of that nation, rather than for instance moving to Canada, when the going gets rough. Given these things, nevertheless it is true that the internet , among other events in our "modern" world, is opening up avenues towards advantages and benefits hitherto difficult to comeby. As many of you are aware, many people are beginning to identify with a global network of friends and co-workers according to their particular (or peculiar) interests, rather than with the "Old Order". It is becoming moot what nationality or what government or what company one works for - the loyalties of the past are being tested and re-configured in the minds of those who now do business and communicate and share things and develop friendships, acquaintances, and empathies, on the net. So to speak of "having a say" on how Singapore or China or any other nation-state runs "our web" or vice versa "us" having a say on how they run "their web" is becoming irrelevant. Economics will be determining how the web is run, and by whom. The identity of those who use it will be not "those who are citizens of Singapore", but: "my friend who lives in Singapore and is having a hard time accessing a file that I wanted him/her to have". Affiliations will be seen differently by those who connect in cyberspace, and if certain of one's cyberspace friends are having problems - if, say, a Hitler were to suddenly rise up in their midst - then the netizens could send their emergency alert out to anyone and everyone on the net about a problem brewing which perhaps someone could help them deal with, according to their ability to do so. It is true that individuals still live within the physical boundaries of "nations" which have formed in the past, and they still hold the concepts of these boundaries in their minds and they still identify closely with these, and they still vote problems upon themselves. But it is becoming an anachronism, and it is becoming inaccurate to speak of "what Singaporians want for the internet". This phrase would describe many of those who live in Singapore, but not all of them. It is more accurate to speak of what "individuals who use the internet" want, of what "individuals who want to communicate" want, of what "individuals who want to connect with others" want. The identifications of self as a citizen who must be identified with the vote of a majority, and consequently suffer the perception of oneself as someone who "voted to accept restrictions of the net, therefore should not be helped against it", is becoming irrelevant. When a distress call goes out from someone anywhere on the planet, the assistance and relief may come from anyone anywhere who chooses to rally others and provide assistance. It is not the traditional "we" against "them", and it is not the "citizens of the US" helping those who "voted themselves a Hitler into power" or "voted themselves into restrictions against free speech". It is "those of us who appreciate the liberty in communications technology" against "those who would take it away". .. Blanc

2 1

DataETRsch
by gt＠kdn0.attnet.or.jp 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Apparently intimidated by the response from the Cypherpunks list, DataETRsch has begun spamming mailing lists with ads for their UDCM/IMDMP Windows DLL. It reared its ugly head in linux-c-programming(a)vger.rutgers.edu today.

1 0

RE: overview.htm (fwd)
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >>>Jim Choate wrote: >>>>>Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >>>>>>>irrelevant(a)nowhere.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>Dale Thorn wrote: It can be said 100,000 times, but it still comes out the same: Just as in "The only cure for bad speech is more speech", "the only cure for 'list-focus-drift' is more on-focus postings".

1 0

RE: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Toto Obese-rvation? I hope you are not assuming that I am obese, just because I am responding to a post originating from 'fatmans.demon.co.uk.' I would hate to become relegated to the upcoming cypherpunks-fatpeople list because of assumptions of this nature. ................................................. Well, Toto, if you don't like this obeservation, you can always unsudribe from "unmoderated" and subcrive to "expurgated". There's also a rumor about a new "exfoliated" list for Snakes of Medusa starting up.... (I swear, I Toto is a tentacle of TCM) .. Blanc

1 0