December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

No Subject
by Mix 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

May Timothy C. Mayo's forgeries get stuck up his ass so he'll have to shit through his filthy mouth for the rest of its miserable life. o o /< >\ Timothy C. Mayo \\\_______/// // \\

2 1

Re: McVeigh? Nimrods.....
by Kent Crispin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, Jun 04, 1997 at 03:47:02PM -0700, Lucky Green wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Chris DiBona wrote: > > Do these children > > who may be important to you have parents who "care" about them enough to > > scour the planet to find a good,safe day care that isn't withing the blast > > radius or > > shooting range of : > > [list of public places elided] > > Perhaps taking your kids to day care in a downtown area is not a very good > idea in the first place. But putting them into daycare inside a federal > building is criminally stupid. > > Some on this list will even > say that the kids' deaths fortunately > reduced the negative impact their parents can have on the gene pool. Yes, some pathetic strange little boys swaggering around in never-never land. Lonely individuals with shriveled hearts, stunted morals, and feverish imaginations, who brag contemptuously of their superiority over "sheeple", and boast of their heroic roles in the coming revolution. And thank you, Lucky, for enlightening me -- it isn't the OKC bomber who is the criminal, it's the people who put their children in the daycare center! There's only one punishment suitable for such "criminally stupid" behavior! Lock and Load! -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent(a)songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

5 4

RE: McVeigh? Nimrods.....
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Chris DiBona wrote: > Do these children > who may be important to you have parents who "care" about them enough to > scour the planet to find a good,safe day care that isn't withing the blast > radius or > shooting range of : [list of public places elided] Perhaps taking your kids to day care in a downtown area is not a very good idea in the first place. But putting them into daycare inside a federal building is criminally stupid. Some on this list will even say that the kids' deaths fortunately reduced the negative impact their parents can have on the gene pool. --Lucky

2 1

Re: Webpage picketing (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Forwarded message: > From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)amaranth.com> > Date: Wed, 04 Jun 97 10:00:46 -0500 > Subject: Re: Webpage picketing (fwd) > I think that your analogy is slightly flawed. > > While the farmers have a right to protest on the side of the road they do > not have a right to interfere with the travelers on the road. Correct and using my model would in no way interfere with a users use of the network. It would not add excessive delay or other impedemants. It would be a one time event that occured when the site was initialy accessed. Much like having to go past the picketers on the side of the road at least once. > There is no real way you could picket on the "Info highway" as you have no > right to interfere with the packets traveling on the highway. You can > stand of to the side if you want but somehow I don't think that the > packets will be watching. :) If it is a fully privately funded highway, I agree. If it accepts public money I obviously disagree with you. As to the packets watching, no more so than the cars being used are watching the picketers. This is a straw man argument. The issue here is not the packets but the paticipants. _______________________________________________________________________ | | | Speak the truth, but leave immediately after. | | | | Slovenian Proverb | | | | Jim Choate ravage(a)ssz.com | | The Armadillo Group www.ssz.com | | Austin, Texas, USA 512-451-7087 | |_______________________________________________________________________|

3 2

RE: McVeigh? Nimrods.....
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I was having dinner with Don Haines, a friend of mine who's a legislative counsel with the national ACLU, when the McVeigh verdict came down. A Canadian prosecutor who was having dinner with us said: "So McVeigh did it after all." Don replied: "No. He was found guilty of the crime." There is a difference. -Declan On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Chris DiBona wrote: > <rant> > > Okay folks...what the hell is wrong with you? First off, this whole McVeigh > Crap is a bit off topic..but we all know this. The amazing thing about the > string of posts has been that people have forgotten that He has been found > guilty of murdering quite a few people. Guilty, Guilty, Guilty. Jury of > his peers, dare I say, people like us all. Randomly selected. This is how > our system works. > > Yes there are flaws in the system. > > Yes the US govt. has it's problems in the past, present and future. > > Yes people have died because schnooks in DC have had thier heads up thier > ass. Or not. > > So whether or not you belive he did it.....how can anyone be _for_ what > _happened_. People died senselessly, I can't believe that anyone (in this > case Duncan Frissell frissell(a)panix.com, lets give credit where it is due) > can be so callous and , frankly, sick , to say : > > <> > As to the Children of OKC, people who turn the care of their children over > to > government employees or contractors do not place too high a value on those > children. > <> > > Are you serious? You should be ashamed that you think this way. Do you > really > think those children who died weren't cared for? You are a sick person who > should seriously consider therapy. Anyone who read this and said "Yeah!" > is > on the same plane. > > To all the people who defend blowing shit and people up to get thier point > across.... > > Okay..so the IRA does it, and HAMMAS does it, and the CIA does it. So does > the > PLFP the FARC and a zillion other terrorist groups. And it appears McVeigh > did it. > But that doesn't make blowing up children in freakin' day care all right. > Do you > understand this? There is no reason to blow up kids. It's wrong. For any > reason. > Bad. Duncan...looking over your past posts.. .I've got to wonder if you > were on acid > when you wrote this, many of your posts were fairly cozigent. But this? Do > you have > children? Any cousins who are children? A nephew or neice? Do these > children > who may be important to you have parents who "care" about them enough to > scour the planet to find a good,safe day care that isn't withing the blast > radius or > shooting range of : > > A government office. > A large corporations headquarters. > A law firm. > A post office. > A town square. > A restaurant. > A bank. > Anywhere some asshole might have a gun and go loopy. > Anywhere some asshole might have a car be drunk and go loopy. > Anywhere some asshole might have a gun and a car and be drunk and go loopy. > > If they even could, I'm someone somewhere will find a way to fuck up that > safe place. > > You get the point, I could go on....but I won't. Perhaps you should think > and read > over your posts before you post again. The only good thing (and I mean > ONLY) to > come out of the whole Mcveigh thing being discussed here on cypherpunks, is > that it has allowed me to add to my killfiles people who have for some > reason, > had a prefrontal. > > To all the dipshits who could possibly think otherwise. I should also > mention it > is an EQUALLY fucked up thing to blow up adults. > > Like my fellow Santa Clara County Resident Bill Frantz said : > > For cypherpunks this comes down to: Make code, not bombs. > > Chris DiBona > > </rant> > >

2 1

Re: McVeigh
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In <199706042335.TAA16934(a)muesli.ai.mit.edu>, on 06/04/97 at 07:35 PM, Hallam-Baker <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> said: >Since its clear that the McVeigh appologists are simply repeating >arguments from alt.conspiracy I don't think theres much point continuing >the thread. >There is absolutely nothing that anyone did that justified McVeigh's >murder of the kids in the daycare center or anyone else. Frissel, Gieger >and co are simply trying to distract attention from that fact. No not at all Phil, while I can't speak for anyone else on the list I myself am try to bring to attention that no one cared about the children at Waco that were burned alive at the hands of the BATF. The general opinion was that those children shouldn't have been there and it was the fault of the Branch Dividians that the BATF murdered them. Now the same thing happens to some Federal Employes and now we hear the cries, and wails, "oh the humanity", "the children the children". Where was the outrage and demands for justice for the children of Waco. They were just an "evil cult" their children deserved to burn. I have heard this logic whispered by more than 1 Federal pig. I for one am sick and tired of hearing these two faced bastards wine and cry when it happens to them by cheer when it happen to someone else. >Hell, if we were to take them seriously they would have to all be FBI >agents attempting to entrap the unwary... > Phill >PS: Could the FBI agent monitoring the list tell us where to send in >evidence in connection with the Bell case? Don't worry Phil they know what a good little sheep you are and are confidant that you will do your duty when it comes time to fill the ovens. - -- - --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html - --------------------------------------------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: cp850 Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000 iQCVAwUBM5YfCo9Co1n+aLhhAQHLfwQAgzs1PcCrLXW/apUy6mt1Pt06owV3eT7/ UHjPWsr1IRrDsv/yQmXcZm7ilCAOyq/WZvgnO8sFGqKXb5QAeldIEgwmENKHEPtv UchPpLAQCrYxWpciRfc5DwXL+fnQDUFvooXTOmZazP0qsZ/OmrjmkDPckXmUAcxf DwaeQrMxacM= =x5R/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Webpage picketing (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Forwarded message: > From: "Peter Trei" <trei(a)process.com> > Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 11:33:54 -6 > Subject: Re: Webpage picketing (fwd) > [Jim wants to be able to 'cyber-picket' - force people to read his > opinions before they can browse sites he does not like. He is > attempting to claim that the net backbones corrospond to public > spaces, where his local government permits him to picket.] Quit taking the drugs they are affecting your attention span. You should also quit trying to divine persons motivation, you are terrible at it. > 'Publically funded network backbones'? Can you name one (in the US)? Actualy I have already named two. > None of which have the slightest relevance - Internet II is a > proposed (and still vaporware) project for an academic-research-only > network Actualy the Internet II documents that I have seen have specificaly mentioned letting students at public schools use them as well as people doing research both private and publicly funded. I understand that it should start to take physical shape just after the turn of the century. The High Speed Supercomputer network is also going to be available for use within just a couple years as well. - it's future existence has no impact on those of us using > the private backbone system of today. You have obviously missed the entire point, today is not the issue. It is tomorrow that we should be looking at and the clear indications that Uncle Sam puts out about funding/supporting future expansion. The federal government can't afford to keep its fingers out of the pie. > Question: if you get the ability to put up your 'cyber-picket' frame, > how about cyber-counter-pickets? Cant the picketee put a page in > front of yours? Who gets priority? Where does it stop? Yes. Yes. First come first served. When the funds run out. > Jim, your idea is roadkill on that horribly imprecise analogy, > the 'information superhighway' (spit). It can't be resuscitated > by asking for 'information super-sidewalks' or claiming the existance > of 'information super-public-spaces'. The underlying metaphor is > fatally flawed. In your opinion, which so far has been nothing but inuendo, ad hominim arguments, and pure opinion. How about some reasoning to go along with it? _______________________________________________________________________ | | | Speak the truth, but leave immediately after. | | | | Slovenian Proverb | | | | Jim Choate ravage(a)ssz.com | | The Armadillo Group www.ssz.com | | Austin, Texas, USA 512-451-7087 | |_______________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Webpage picketing (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Forwarded message: > From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)amaranth.com> > Date: Wed, 04 Jun 97 21:38:40 -0500 > Subject: Re: Webpage picketing (fwd) > >Correct and using my model would in no way interfere with a users use of > >the network. It would not add excessive delay or other impedemants. It > >would be a one time event that occured when the site was initialy > >accessed. Much like having to go past the picketers on the side of the > >road at least once. > > I guess we will have to agree to disagree. If I am stoped even once that > is one time too many. In the real world if a group of picketers try to > impead my entrance to a store parking lot the growl of a 427 does alot to > convince them of the errors of their ways. :) Whew, talk about fixated. NOBODY is talking about stopping anything but you, THAT would be unconstitutional. I am NOT saying that such a situation would prevent you from reaching your destination (ie the store) but it would require you to pass through the picket line (ie get a single page as your first responce to your request) and be exposed however briefly to their speech. > Yes and it is the participants who are sending the packets. If I am > sending packets between point A & B you have no right to interfere with > those transmisions. You are right, I WOULD have a right to interfere with their reception which is after all what I am talking about. I am in no way discussing slowing or otherwise altering the request from the user, I am specificaly talking about adding a single page to the servers output. Straw man. > You donot have the right to re-route them or substute > them for others. If you have somthing to say put up a web page and if I am > interested I'll stop by and take a look. You don't have the right to force > me to look. To do so would be a serious perversion of the 1st Amendment. Absolutely, and none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the issue at hand. Another straw man. If you are using a publicly funded thoroughfare I CAN consitutionaly FORCE you to see my message if YOU insist on going to that particular store. It isn't the user who is being picketed, it is the server. You as a user of the system have nothing to say about it, unless as alluded by another cpunk you want to picket the picketers (which is completely legal and happens quite often). _______________________________________________________________________ | | | Speak the truth, but leave immediately after. | | | | Slovenian Proverb | | | | Jim Choate ravage(a)ssz.com | | The Armadillo Group www.ssz.com | | Austin, Texas, USA 512-451-7087 | |_______________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Re: Webpage picketing (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Forwarded message: > From: frissell(a)panix.com > Date: Wed, 04 Jun 1997 22:39:56 -0400 > Subject: Re: Webpage picketing (fwd) > The Net is technically and legally a private value-added network. The last > bit of the then existing backbone was privatized the weekend following the OKC > bombing in April 1995. (No relation) Yes, and there is not one law on the books preventing the government from putting in their own backbones in the future, which is exactly what they are planning on doing. Which is what I am talking about. This temporal displacement argument is a straw man. _______________________________________________________________________ | | | Speak the truth, but leave immediately after. | | | | Slovenian Proverb | | | | Jim Choate ravage(a)ssz.com | | The Armadillo Group www.ssz.com | | Austin, Texas, USA 512-451-7087 | |_______________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Webpage picketing (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Forwarded message: > From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)amaranth.com> > Date: Wed, 04 Jun 97 22:31:07 -0500 > Subject: Re: Webpage picketing (fwd) > I as Joe Sixpack want to goto http://www.bigtits.com > > You as goodie-2-shoes want to picket this site. > > Inorder to do this you wish to have me goto http://www.NOW.com and see > their anti-porn page before I can see the bigtits page. (wether I actually > goto their website or the page is automatically downloaded is irrelevant > for the disscusion). Not exactly, I am saying it would be legaly permissible under the same chain of reasoning that allows picketing at a public sidewalk in front of a business to extend it to network traffic which traversed a public link in the chain of nodes between user and server. I am in effect saying the end point publicly funded servers on a section of publicly funded network, not the user or the actual target server (who again have no more stake in this than in an actual picket line - none), would be required to provide 3rd party single pages before serving the actual target of the user based upon the same sorts of situations that arise in meatland. Is that clearer? > Where exactly is it in the constution that say that your free speech > rights extend to the point where you can force me to read what you have to > say when I don't want to? The 1st Amendment, when you are traversing public property, be it a sidewalk or stretch of network cable. It is simply a matter of strategy and geography if for you to get to where you want to go you have to go through public property on which I desire to speak. Neither you nor your intended destination has anything to say about it. > I just don't see how you can make this leap regardless of who is doing the > funding. Then you don't understand how picketing works. To get to the private store you must cross public property. The public is free to use that property to their own ends within the law. The law allows, through the 1st Amendment, anyone to stand on that public stip and make certain claims about adjacent private parties. Hell, you can legaly picket a private individuals house as long as you do it from the sidewalk - which by extension means that they could specificaly picket your personal server if they desired as long as they did it from a publicly funded stretch of network. > I'll leave the numerous analogies alone for a latter post. I just don't > see where anyone has the right to tell me what I must read. As long as you are not using everybody elses money (ie public funds) to get there they don't. But your not wanting to see the picketers in front of Bookstop on the sidewalk in no way impacts their right to be there and your total impunity to do anything about it legaly short of picketing yourself. _______________________________________________________________________ | | | Speak the truth, but leave immediately after. | | | | Slovenian Proverb | | | | Jim Choate ravage(a)ssz.com | | The Armadillo Group www.ssz.com | | Austin, Texas, USA 512-451-7087 | |_______________________________________________________________________|

2 1