December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Ebonics
by Matthew J. Miszewski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 05:04 PM 12/21/96 -0800, Jamie Lawrence wrote: >Are you honestly arguing that a system of communication >acknoledged and taught in a public school is satisfying >a 'need or desire to communicate in a private way"? Actually I meant my tongue to be relatively firmly in cheek. However, some sub-cultures from which ebonics comes did have a need and desire to communicate quickly and privately. >Or that Ebonics has anything to do with communicating >in the presence of a police officer? Often times in some areas of this country, people distrust the police. They do form ways of communication that is not easily understood to avoid what they see as police interference. I am not defending use of communication privacy techniques in the name of the four-horsemen but... > >Or that either of the above has anything to do with crypto? > As Tim and others have said repeatedly, there is no on/off topic here. Want pure code goto coderpunks; want moderation goto cryptography. I am just trying to counter some of the statements made here. Sometimes people view cpunks as some sort of borg-like mind with no dissidents. I sometimes reply to let people know that might not be so... Matt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCUAwUBMr2ztLpijqL8wiT1AQFZHAP43SqA3CGpt46zs8esSYNPvw3Iyf/No2y6 7yQ1ij2UN/jD2rFh8CPJE+MS59YOlXiItsBDQLZoGJRhWS/dVJ8LHkeMvZHwHD1l Yf01COkpB6K7HMj0pFjVvdpigbekWzGrTh5juIRg/xhkLhUqJJfN5eWlgif29Fnd EzgHGGBBQA== =QyMm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

8 23

Re: Ebonics
by Matthew J. Miszewski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Sorry to quote so much, in this case it seemed necessary. At 04:07 PM 12/21/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >At 5:49 PM -0600 12/21/96, Matthew J. Miszewski wrote: > >>Are you talking about the School Board requirements? Are you still in High >>School, Tim? ;-) I have never heard you speak of children, so you might >>have a valid complaint if you have them in public schools (although home >>schooling is still an option). > >The principle is of interest to even those without schoolaged children! >Neither having schoolaged children nor living in the Oakland Public School >System district is a necessary condition for commenting on the foolishness >of "Ebonics" and other such scams. Only the most naive of commentators says >things like "If your children were not cannibalized by Jeffrey Dahmer, why >do you feel the need to comment on Dahmer?" > >(Sorry, Matthew, but I'm losing any remaining respect for your rhetorical >skills. I used to think we just disagreed politically, now I see more is >involved.) I apparently need to use those twirpy smiley faces more often (see above). I meant that to be funny which I guess it wasnt. One of your (Tim) prior posts clarifies much. That you hold out absolutely no hope for democracy actually lets me in on why you express yourself now like you do. My memory is that you werent always so clear in your expressions of disgust; this memory comes from several non-derogatory uses of the term "suits" when it came to cpunk political action in the past. I agree that democracy has myriads of flaws, but still hold out some hope for change. My comment about such inflaming language was of disappointment because Tim almost single-handedly helped me reconsider many of my traditional political thoughts. It is difficult sometimes to get past the anger in current posts (although I do understand and respect Tim's ability to be absolutely honest about his views which is refreshing.) Matt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMr22JbpijqL8wiT1AQHbIQQAhX7pj5JqkG55pWkexxn5qRMmlhme44lo ZsHXsfVNWhon2gqPBUvQT7BDEXJvTiiPGcfaAYL5GZV5FqpDOnuvyEBUOWwCoajK oFBHTgHeLL90MRi+py+k5rtofz5wA68M9LDqnNlIsISeTeq9vefBbGmeNIq3mrnv d/eqocuU1aM= =A/LN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Ebonics
by Matthew J. Miszewski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>You're confusing issues. As with similar confusions about "right to work" >(where the putative conflict is between Alice's right to hire whom she >chooses and Bob's putative "right to a job"), the confusion lies in what >one calls a right. I assume you are talking about right-to-work labor laws, in which case, it does not refer to the above. It has to do with union-membership (which you more than likely similarly disagree with...) I agree that there is rampant abuse of the word/idea of "rights" in this country and around the world. I similarly think that many political disagreements can be boiled down to this problem. >And just where did anyone in any of these posts call for outlawing any >particular language, pidgin, slang, creole, jive, or invented lingo? I was actually joking, Tim. My original response was sent before I knew of the Oakland initiative. I do not hail from California, the land of Proposition XXX, and find some of them silly. You do advocate the unemployment of people who do utilize such a dialect/language. And I do fear that many people subscribe to your line of thinking. So I do respond to some of your posts earlier than I sometimes should to present a different point of view. >Really, Matt, go back to Rhetoric 101 and learn how to argue. That's a good argument. Do they teach that ad hominem stuff in that class? ;-) Matt

3 2

Re: Ebonics
by Matthew J. Miszewski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 08:30 PM 12/21/96 -0500, Mark M. wrote: >I never said that the government should force people to speak a certain >language. You are missing the main point: How do you expect to communicate >with an employee who can't speak any language that you can understand? It's >not arbitrary at all. In fact, it's rather simple. I have apparently been excrutiatingly unclear in my last post (tired folks should stay away from their terminals). I wasnt refrencing governmental action, but rather a flaw in some principles. I believe that the line of thought that we should all speak "proper" english leads to anti-libertarian results. What has been missing from my posts is the link to the chain of english-as-an-official-language regulation. Tim's argument for the ability to communicate is somewhat reasonable in an employment context (although it depends largely upon the employment). When it is couched in the terms of his post, it makes the link to the chain of reasoning above much easier to make. Matt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMr28prpijqL8wiT1AQH70AP/TV7qcy3y26yeH+eNvm9MVBY0NfuBGokC uHS1NxpiIxl6NUTXIZTHKjlOd/pGM8JBgV6fp+7o+iruiJWBhE6mql+d/NAWjDiz RLJ8brwuy0sqG98GrwCKHjsc6Bf88v+DcxHxAs92uEqJ6aKeEuqXiITFwKrC9xjf euZxnLm0q6w= =OEgE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Ebonics
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:30 PM 12/22/96 -0500, Mark Rosen wrote: > Hehe. What I mean to say is that since both Ebonics and a Southern accent >are learned during early childhood, you have no control over how you talk. This is not true. The recent commentary and interviews I've seen on this subject make it clear that the people speaking "Ebonics" are quite capable of speaking in standard English, and do so when they find it, er, convenient. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 3

Re: that cyber holiday card...
by Carl Johnson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Gary Raynes wrote: > > Teri Zuckerman <tzuckerman(a)hampshire.edu> wrote: > > > > To whomever sent that electronic card... I fwd. it to a friend of mine, and > > now it's wrecking his hard drive! please respond... > > > > -Teri > > Wow! I'm sorry. I did check it for a virus with 2 different anti-virus > programs before I sent it to anyone. > I'll see what I can find out about it and get back to you . > Has anyone else had any problems like that? > Gary R.

1 0

Re: Slaughter
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:12 AM 12/22/96 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: >Carl Johnson wrote: >> Dale Thorn wrote: > >> Thanks, I love the quote but can't find it or it's source. Perhaps I >> can put it all together in bits and pieces. > >As long as we're getting closer on that one, I thought I'd add my own >twist on another famous (but obnoxious) quote: > >The standard version: >God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; >The courage to change the things I can; >And the wisdom to know the difference. (quote not necessarily exact). > >My version: >God grant me the wisdom to know the difference between right and wrong; >The courage to support those who I feel are doing the right things, > and to oppose those who are doing the wrong things; >And the serenity to do so as peacefully as possible. Another, increasingly popular, variety of the AA "prayer" is: God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; The courage to change the things I can; And the firepower that makes the difference. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred Make your mark in the history of mathematics. Use the spare cycles of your PC/PPC/UNIX box to help find a new prime. http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm

3 2

RE: The Ebonic Plague
by James Bugden 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

blancw(a)cnw.com wrote: >From: Timothy C. May > >Democracy has run amok in this country. There is no hope for reforming >at the ballot box, as democracy only makes things worse. Only a crypto >reign of terror can purge this land of the scum. >...................................................... > >Just how would this take shape in "real life" - what would constitute this >reign of terror; how do you envision such an event in action? > >And which are the scum who would be purged? > >Blanc Scum - you know - it's like crap - it's the stuff that floats to the top. Or is that the cream? Sucks Syntax! Anarchy Rules! Merry Christmas! James jbugden(a)alis.com "pride and selfishness, when combined with mental power, never want for a theory to justify them-and when men oppress their fellow-men, the oppressor ever finds, in the character of the oppressed, a full justification for his oppression." Frederick Douglass, 1854

2 1

unsuscribe kwit@iap.net.au
by kwit＠iap.net.au 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unsuscribe kwit(a)iap.net.au

1 0

Re: [NOT NOISE] Microsoft Crypto Service Provider API
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:36 AM 12/18/96 -0800, geeman(a)best.com wrote: > >Microsoft had to agree to validate crypto binaries against >a signature to make sure they weren't tampered with, in >exchange for shipping crypto-with-a-hole. They will >sign anything (theoretically) if it has the export >papers and all. Or without, if you affadavit it is not >for export. > >They do not themselves impose any restrictions on crypto >strength. >I'm not expressing political position here, just conveying facts .... What if the software involved was IMPORTED? Moreover, is legal to export just the signature? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0