December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

New group
by Paul Bradley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, Well despite the obvious problems of propogation I thought it was time someone actually did something to get us a new home, even if it`s only temporary. So I have created alt.cypherpunks... See you all over on usenet!... Best regards... Paul Bradley

3 2

Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Sandy hit a pothole in the moderation experiment when Mr. Nemesis > submitted a posting containing nothing but libelous statements about > Sandy's employer. He never anticipated that he wouldn't be able to > follow his announced "post it to one list or the other" policy because > to do so would make him legally liable (in his opinion; he's a lawyer, > I'm not). His gears jammed, and the whole machine came to a halt for > a few days. No, I think you are mistaken. If you take this as a pothole then there was very little road throughout the entire "moderation experiment". At the end of the day Sandfort discarded articles he didn`t like without posting them to either list and routed all criticism of his censorhip to the shit can. > Now each of these posters will get their chance to do it "right" -- > on their own time and with their own resources. As I said, you have dragged the lists name down with you. It is better that you close the list down now so it is no longer associated with a fascist such as yourself. > A large fraction of the list seems to think that "freedom of speech" > means that everyone is required to listen to everyone else at all > times. That there can't be focused, topical conversations in a > society that has freedom of speech. I would say the opposite; part of > freedom of speech is the freedom to choose to whom we speak and to > whom we listen. This is part of what cryptography does: lets us > control who can receive our speech, and lets recievers determine who > the speaker is. This is accepted by many members of the list including myself, However, I prefer to choose for myself who I listen to and converse with rather than having you or Sandfort decide for me. > To paraphrase Zappa, you wouldn't know censorship if it bit you on the > ass. You think you're being censored when you're just being excluded > from a forum because what you're saying isn't interesting to that forum. And you wouldn`t know an anarchist if he bit you on the ass. Toad was supposed to host a list the purpose of which was to allow people to speak freely and without "moderation". You have censored it and you have fucked up. Face it, you are a fascist. > So anyway, I'm tired of it all. I'd much rather focus on getting my > crypto work done than babysitting majordomo, tracking down attempts to > subscribe the entire US Congress to the list, and debating the seventy > or eighty "obvious right ways" to handle the list. The obvious right way to handle the list, and the way you advocated until your greed for power and fear of criticism warped your judgement, was to run it as a totally free and open list. > This is a "put up or shut up" to the cypherpunks community. This is a "fuck off" to John Gilmore. > The next ten days of moderated discussion, through the end of the > original experiment, will give the community a chance to discuss > whether and where it plans to host the list after the experiment is > over. My feeling is that the stalkers who have been trying to shut it > down (Dimitri, etc) will be out in full force, trying to disrupt the > process of finding a new home. It would be very hard to make progress > along that line in an unmoderated list. Cypherpunks-unedited readers > are welcome to try. Eh? - Dimitri supports fully the aims and idealogies of crypto-anarchy as far as I can see. What he takes issue with is censorship, elitism and hypocisy. I happen to believe the same but I suppose that makes me a "stalker". > Sandy reports that he's changing his criteria for moderation for the > remainder of the experiment. It was his idea, and I approve. The > criteria now are: > > * The topics of the list are: > cryptography > setting up replacements for cypherpunks(a)toad.com Add praise of Sandfort, Gilmore (fart)(spit) and Sandforts employer to that. > * On-topic, legal, posts will go to the list. Apart from the ones Sandfort doesn`t like. > * Postings with any hint of legal liability (in Sandy's opinion) > will be silently ignored. So will posts which cricise Sandfort (spit), Gilmore (fart), Sameer (piss) or c2net (belch). > * Legal but off-topic posts will go to cypherpunks-flames. Ie. None, because they will all be "silently ignored" by Sandfort. > Sandy will apply these criteria retroactively to the backlog (of about > 140 messages), which means that most recent criticisms of the > moderation (which don't invove someone volunteering to do things for > the list) will go straight to the flames list. If you don't like it, > I recommend that you start your own list. Soon. I shall, and on topic posts shall include those declaring John Gilmore is a cocksucker. And off topic posts will not be censored, so fuck you. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

Any info on Rep. Goodlatte's SAFE act?
by Aaron D. gifford 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone have any information on Congressman Goodlatte's S.A.F.E. act? Aaron out.

1 0

Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
by chefren 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 11 Feb 97 at 3:54, John Gilmore wrote: > I've come to the conclusion that I'm not willing to host the > cypherpunks list any more. It's not the true assholes that brought me > to this decision; it's the reaction from the bulk of people on the > list: suspicion, flamage, and criticism with every attempt to improve > things. I noticed few people volunteering some of their own time, > money, or machines to help out. Almost all the suggestions were > advice for *other* people to implement: Hm... In the year 1513 or 1514 someone who could be an Honourable Member of this list (if one could be one...) wrote: > There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more > perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, > than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order > of things. <Niccolo Machiavelli, Il Principe> Please stop at looking too much on how people scream about your new ideas and continue this list the way you like it!!! I think it's Your Machine and we have to respect your decision to pull the plug, nobody should blame you for that, but please listen a little to the 1000+ people who don't scream and are obviously happy with the list and respected your right to do the "sandy filter experiment". +++chefren

1 0

please
by mfisher＠ash.nl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Please take mfisher(a)ash.nl off of your mailing list

1 0

REMOVE MY NAME
by KENNETH A. LEONE 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

PLEASE DO NOT FORWARD FURTHER CYPHERPUNKS MESSAGES TO MY E-MAIL ADDRESS. THANK YOU.

1 0

REMOVE MY NAME
by KENNETH A. LEONE 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

PLEASE DO NOT FORWARD FURTHER CYPHERPUNKS MESSAGES TO MY E-MAIL ADDRESS. THANK YOU.

1 0

URLs for public keys
by nobody＠wazoo.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Deceptive Vinegar's aberrant sexual life has negatively impacted his mental integrity. ____ \ _/__ Deceptive Vinegar \\ / \/

1 0

Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, What is the current future of the Cypherpunks webpage? Will it continue to be kept up or is it going down as well? Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

2 1

Re: Network of majordomos
by Trust Me 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Greg Broiles wrote: > I sent a proposal to alt.config last night and intend to newgroup > alt.cypherpunks in a week or so Is this a follow-up to your suggestion to kill the list? The list that you stated you were leaving because you don't think it's worthy of subscribing to? Is there any particular reason you want to redirect the future of a list that you want killed and no longer want to subscribe to? Just asking. Trust Me (<--shouldn't this be 'your' sig?)

1 0