December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:46:59 EDT > To: edsmith(a)IntNet.net > Subject: Re: Voices > I also read an Aasimov a while back in fifth grade - unfortunately, I can't > remember even the name... I need to pick some of his books up again... > One book I can remember reading since 5th grade (and every summer thereafter) > is "IT" by Stephen King - one of his few really good books. I have read it 8 > times since. > I greatly recommend it =) Stephen King is no horror writer, he's a pussy wanna be. If you want a really good author then check out Poppy Z. Brite. Lost Souls (read this one first) Drawing Blood Exquisite Corpse (if you've ever wondered if you were the least bit homophobic, when you finish this one you'll know) You'll either read about 2-3 pages and quit in utter refulsion and disgust or else you'll be hooked. Sombody else to try is: Grave markings Michael A. Arnzen Ann Rice? Give me a break... ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

A definition of EVIL.
by Edwin E. Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A LIFE-AND-DEATH ISSUE To proceed we need at least a working definition. It is a reflection of the enormous mystery of the subject that we do not have a generally accepted definition of evil. Yet in our hearts I think we all have some understanding of its nature. For the moment I can do no better than to heed my son, who, with the characteristic vision of eight-year-olds, explained simply, "Why, Daddy, evil is 'live' spelled backward." Evil is in opposition to life. It is that which opposes the life force. It has, in short, to do with killing. Specifically, it has to do with murder-namely, unnecessary killing, killing that is not required for biological survival. from "People of the Lie" by M. Scott Peck, M.D.

1 0

Re: Democracy... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:27:23 -0500 > From: Jaeger <Jaeger(a)hempseed.com> > Subject: Re: Democracy... > hey, would you care to show us where "seperation of church and state" is > to be found in the constitution/bill of rights? absolute right and ARTICLE I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ARTICLE X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The 1st prevents the government from regulating religion, even to the point of having the authority to define what a religion is. This includes smoking dope, raping little babies, whatever. It *IS NOT* an issue within the guidelines of the Constitution for the *federal* government, Period, end of story. Note that it does *not* prevent religions from participating in the government. They could regulate any commerce of those churches that cross state lines. The 10th says that unless the state you happen to live in regulates religion through a representative form of government via their own constitution then the practice and limits of religion are to be decided by the individual. Don't like it? Get a god damned amendment passed modifying or nullifying one or both of the above amendments. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Larry Gilbert, AOLers, and the Hyper-real flamer
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Some smart people do come from aol but then again they don't say stupid stuff. Aol will always be stereo typed until it is cleansed of morons. It is a stereotype based on truth. Famous AOL saying: me too! ---AIMSX(a)aol.com wrote: > > Obviously you have a very high opinion of yourself and a low opinion of people > who use AOL. Contrary to popular belief, there are a few intelligent people > on AOL, but it looks as if you are too egotistical to realize that. > > Have you ever thought to look at your own mistakes before you publicize > everyone else's to the world? Are you just suffering from some sort of > dillusion of grandeur - thinking you are better than everyone else. Things > like this are what many wars were started over, I am so happy the internet > (hopefully) won't start a war in the real world. > > == "The same thing we do every night Pinkey, try to take over the WORLD!" - The brain _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: Democracy... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 23:09:03 -0500 > From: Jaeger <Jaeger(a)hempseed.com> > Subject: Re: Democracy... > and the meaning is not that church > shouldn't have an effect on the state. Agreed. The state CAN support one > religion over another. If we are speaking of 'the state' as the 'federal government' then *no* it can't support any religion because it isn't authorized to address those issues under any venue, make no law means just that, make no law - whether for or against religion is irrelevant. This country is blind in respect to religion and the cornucopia of individual actions via the 9th & 10th. Now if you are speaking of 'the state' as the individual 50 states, regulated within the confines of their own 50 individual constitutions, as directed per the 10th then you are correct - provided the state constitution gives the state government the duty (governments don't have rights) to regulate religion, the fact is most don't. If there is no individual state regulation then the limitations of religion fall upon individual discretion. Whether the religion promoted going to heaven, smoking good ganja, or rapeing babies is irrelevant as to the ability of the state to engage in prior restraint - they can't. Since most local jurisdictions have laws against murder, rape, child molestation, etc. under their individual charters and representative system there is really no reason to a priori regulate such activities at any higher level than localy. It isn't the act that we should worry about, it's the consequences to others after the fact. If an act doesn't effect another person or their property directly then there is no legitimate reason to interfere with their actions. Constitutionaly the federal government should be blind to my actions as an individual unless I'm crossing a state line, work for the federal government, legal action, or have a treasury issue. > In context, the phrase simply explains that the > government can't make laws that RESTRICT religious practice or doctrinal > issues. Bullshit. There is NO way to reasonably accept this as a legitimate interpretation of the 1st & 10th. > The state CAN make laws that encourage the practice of any one > particular religion, as long as the laws do not RESTRICT the PRACTICE of > other religions. Making people uncomfortable isn't a constitutional > reason to overturn a law. No. Niether the spirit or the letter of the issue allows such sweeping generalizations. In fact it fails for the same reason that mass searches fail strict Constitutional interpretation, the Constitution directs that probable cause is required *IN EACH CASE* to be handled individualy, there is no stipulation where individual probable cause may be bypassed. Just because you do it to everyone, while you can't do it to anyone, legitimizes it. If you can't rape an individual you can't rape 10 people. The same applies to religion, the federal government can't make a law respecting a religion because it can't even define religion. Now if you can't support any religion you certainly can't support an individual religion. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Regards
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Witty retort to the flames :) I like this one. ---Christopher Barkley <christopher.barkley(a)srcm.com> wrote: > > Apparently, I just spammed your list a couple of days ago; my > apologies. Some zithead listed your email address in the Six Degrees > networking service and starting asking people to be his contacts. One > can only hope his fate is neither swift nor pretty. (I bear some of the > blame; I should have recognized the email address since I have several > friends on the list.) > > At any rate, my thanks to Tom Perry for his polite explanation of the > situation. > > As for the REST of you who responded, you have my sympathies. With any > luck, they'll get that thorazine prescription refilled soon. > > Cheerio, > Christopher > == "The same thing we do every night Pinkey, try to take over the WORLD!" - The brain _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: Democracy...
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Separation of church and state was established by jefferson not as a quote from the constitution but as a summary of the religious parts of it. It was written in a letter to baptists in massachusets. He also sent a copy of it to his postmaster general and attorney general for proofreading to make sure it was a legal summary and correct. You can find this info on the internet. ---Jaeger <Jaeger(a)hempseed.com> wrote: > > hey, would you care to show us where "seperation of church and state" is > to be found in the constitution/bill of rights? absolute right and > wrong is not a religious belief (necessarily).. your religious beliefs > do not affect the nature of reality. there are absolute truths by > necessity... see, there is NO WAY that there could not be. Because if > there were no absolute truths, then that would mean that NOTHING is > absolute. That statement in itself is an absolute. now, as for > absolute truths regarding the president, there may or may not be any as > far as most people are concerned. people always seem to make an > exception for people who agree with them... in order to be an effective > president, however, one must uphold the very basis of this country, by > upholding the law. Clinton perjured himself, obstructed justice, and > tampered with witnesses in a grand jury investigation (which was > incidentally <sp?> being conducted by a man who was praised just months > earlier as unbiased and very qualified for the job). The man is > supposed to be the figurehead for our system of gov't. If he cannot > follow the law, then he is not fit for the office. > > Jaeger > > > Ever heard of seperation of church and state? Democracy? the rights of > > > > the individual? While you certainly have the right to practice your > > religion in what ever manner you so choose demanding that everyone > > else > > does, or that the president of the us of ais subject to you PERSONAL > > faith decisions is outragous > > > > Vivek Vaidya > > > > ______________________________________________________ > > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > > > == "The same thing we do every night Pinkey, try to take over the WORLD!" - The brain _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Titanic
by jeff206＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Titanic Enthusiast: Sometime over the last few months you had visited our Titanic site entitled "Enter The Titanic". Also, you signed our Guest Book, expressed an interest in purchasing Titanic merchandise and left us your email address. I hope you don't mind receiving this message. If you do not wish to receive these messages regarding Titanic or Titanic merchandise in the future, simply respond to this email with "NO MORE" written in the subject window. For those of you interested, the cost of two of our most popular items have been reduced by our suppliers due to large volumes sold from our site. Authentic reproduction buttons and the Titanic CD ROM. 1). Authentic Reproductions - The Waterbury Button Company produced the solid brass buttons which adorned the coats of both the officers and crew of the R.M.S. Titanic. They also reproduced the buttons to be used in the James Camron movie "TITANIC". They have once more produced these buttons for public collection. These buttons are pressed from the same molds used in 1912, solid brass and coated in 24K gold. At only $29.95 plus shipping and handling they make a great gift or collection piece. CLICK HERE for a detailed description or visit http://www.geocities.com/baja/8334/reproductions.htm 2). "TITANIC: A Voyage of Discovery" CD ROM - This CD ROM disk is loaded with the most information compiled on Titanic than any other source available. It's filled with photos, music, video, artifacts and stories taken from the actual account of survivors. It's a must have for any Titanic enthusiast. This fact filled CD ROM has been reduced for a short time to only $45.95 plus shipping and handling. CLICK HERE for more details or visit http://www.unidial.com/~bflowers/home.htm I hope you will visit these sites and add these great items to your Titanic collection. We pride ourselves in offering only the highest quality, authentic Titanic merchandise. Other products we offer are listed at our Titanic Merchandise page located at http://www.unidial.com/~bflowers/merchandise.htm Remember Titanic and those who lost their lives aboard her. May They Rest In Peace ! Bob Flowers, Jr. Webmaster Enter The Titanic

1 0

Re: Democracy...
by Edwin E. Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 twit, v.t, twitted, twitting. address teasingly. I'm touched! You think I'm teasing you? Well, I'm NOT teasing you. You're an ASSHOLE! Yes I spelled it correctly so there wouldn't be any misunderstanding. You're a self-righteous prick who dumps on people just because they have a certain email address without any consideration for what they may be saying. Yes there are clueless people at AOL and there are clueless people at got.net and at intnet.net. So what? When you cut yourself off from people just because of their email address you do yourself a disservice but when you try to dissuade others because of your prejudice then you wrong us as well. I am quite able to evaluate the worthiness of someones words without your superior pronouncements. If you don't have anything of value to add to the discussion then shut-the-fuck-up! Edwin At 09:43 PM 9/15/98 -0700, you wrote: >At 9:31 PM -0700 9/15/98, Edwin E. Smith wrote: > >> >>Only a minute or two? How many minutes does it take to be able to >>correctly spell the name of somebody you are deprecating? >> > >The only _name_ mentioned in my post was "Assimov." This must be the >"correctly spell the name of...." example you are citing. > >This spelling was deliberate, based on the AOL guy citing his 5th grade >reading of it... > >As for you, you're still a twit. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNf9RzUmNf6b56PAtEQJUywCg/d+IFyZeUWGvytpdxR85CuHS05YAoLyB bkSyv+E6WRZXewM0LEIS2jcZ =OdGi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Larry Gilbert, AOLers, and the Hyper-real flamer
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 15 Sep 1998 AIMSX(a)aol.com wrote: > > Obviously you have a very high opinion of yourself and a low opinion of people > who use AOL. Contrary to popular belief, there are a few intelligent people > on AOL, but it looks as if you are too egotistical to realize that. You're right. We have very high opinions of ourselves. We have low opinions of people who use AOL because they're typically scum, spammers, or idiots. You even admit this by saying "there are a FEW intelligent people on AOL." They're also paying $20/month for a shitty service with a bad reputation. If you don't like the stereotype, get your fellow AOLers to get a clue and reverse it which will probably take years if it's possible at all, or if you're actually an intelligent AOLer, go get an ISP which isn't synonymous with manure. Personally, I'm figuring very, very few AOL users who publish actively to the Internet have a clue. The traffic on this list just over the last month backs that up. The reputation AOL has is deserved, and there is a definate pattern of stupidity from AOL. In the future quote so we know what you're talking about, and don't use the "flick off the Internet" quoting style, either. > Have you ever thought to look at your own mistakes before you publicize > everyone else's to the world? I'm not sending requests for band stickers to cryptography lists. I'm not sending messages to cryptography lists which read "how u do that" with no punctuation. I'm not asking members of cryptography lists to sign me up to receive the news by email every morning. I'm not replying to things while not quoting, or by using some quoting system which was designed by AOL for the purpose of pissing off non-AOLers. I'm not publishing web pages which are unreadable without the latest shovelware from Microsoft or Netscape, and which shoots the finger otherwise. I'm not saying "AOL is the Internet," and I'm not signing up with a service because they send me a free mirror or coaster or because I'm too lazy to learn to do anything other than point and click. > Are you just suffering from some sort of > dillusion of grandeur - thinking you are better than everyone else. Not everyone else, but infinitely better than the average kool d00d, AOLer, or webber, and infinitely better than the president who the "average" American elected. By the way, the sentence I quoted above is what is known as a question. In English, you use a question mark for those. > Things > like this are what many wars were started over, I am so happy the internet > (hopefully) won't start a war in the real world. I won't have anything to do with it, but I'm fully expecting for some new Unabomber to appear within the next few years. Instead of targeting technology centers like the Unabomber did, this guy will mail bombs to spammers, people who send "how u do that" to lists, etc. I, thankfully, am morally constrained enough to never do anything like that, but I would bet that there is somebody out there who isn't. >From what AOL users send to the Internet from their service, one can easily conclude that AOL is a haven for wannabes, lamers, and k00l D00dz \/\/h0 tiPE l1|<E Th1s, but since AOL _is_ the Internet and is so filled with intelligent people, I suggest you go back there and leave all of us who are just deluded into thinking we're using the Internet and who only think we know about our professions and hobbies. Yet another AnonMonger. (How many are there now? Man.)

1 0