December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: How to reign the federal government in... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 22:53:06 +0000 > From: "Douglas L. Peterson" <fnorky(a)chisp.net> > Subject: Re: How to reign the federal government in... > As per Article V, two thirds of the States can call a Convention to > propose Amendments. I believe this would be 33 of our current 50 states. > Territories and other holding would have no say in this. At this point, > if three fourths of the states agree to any proposed Amendments, it becomes > the law of the land. > > We only need two thirds of the States to start the process, but this > must be done by their Legislatures. Which is exactly what I said. The goal of the party would be to get proposed amendments on the floor each state legislature for vote. > > The IRS, for example, could be shut down tomorrow or significantly modified > > via this mechanism without involvement at the federal level. > > I assume this would be either by nullifying Amendment 15 or modifying it > to a great degree. Nothing else would work. That's the way I see it as well, which is the point after all. > > What is needed is a political party that has a representative site in each > > state capital. Their job is to get proposed amendments to the Constitution > > on the floor of each body for vote. > > Actually, it would not be to get the proposed amendments on the floor. You > would be putting the proposal for a Convention to amend the Constitution > on the floor. In addition, depending on the State, the party would likely > need to have a member elected to that States Legislature. Actualy it is. The Convention is only to create the amendment, the actual vote takes place in the state legislatures, not the convention. > That is why Article V was written as it was. It provides a backdoor to > keep the federal government from getting out of control. Absolutely. Now, let's kick the beggar in! ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: Article V - an analysis (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:59:46 -0800 > From: Todd Larason <jtl(a)molehill.org> > Subject: Re: Article V - an analysis > Note that although it's clear that this is only for proposing amendments, our > history leaves some doubt that's what would actually happen. The current > constitution came ouf of a constitutional convention called under the Articles > of Confederation to discuss amendments, but was finally enacted under > procedures *it* specified, not the procedures specified in the Articles. Why is this problematic? When the convention was called it was with the express goal of replacing the articles. A tacit a priori admission they were faulty and needed replacement. Now, why would they ratify the new Constitution under the old rules in such a situation? They wouldn't. One day the old rules apply, the next day the new rules apply. It makes more sense to ask folks to recognize the new rules under their own aegis than some problematic hold-over. No, the intent of the Constitution was to intentionaly break the ties with the status quo and precedence. > Historically, Congress has always specified, at the time it proposes the > amendments. I believe all but the repeal of prohibition were handled using > the legislature method. Did Congress accept the prohibition amendments without a priori specifying their submission and implimentation mechanism? ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Nov. 29 column - Christmas book giving
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:40:16 -0700 Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 23:38:45 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: vin(a)dali.lvrj.com Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vinsends(a)ezlink.com From: Vin_Suprynowicz(a)lvrj.com (Vin Suprynowicz) Subject: Nov. 29 column - Christmas book giving Resent-From: vinsends(a)ezlink.com X-Mailing-List: <vinsends(a)ezlink.com> archive/latest/599 X-Loop: vinsends(a)ezlink.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vinsends-request(a)ezlink.com Status: RO FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED NOV. 29, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Give a dangerous book for Christmas Pickings have been a little slim, I must admit, for my annual Christmas book column. At the risk of emulating the editors of Rolling Stone, with whom I parted ways when they started dismissing all the best music of the '70s as "derivative" (heck, what isn't, Parker and Coltrane are "derivative," and I happened to (start ital)like(end ital) Eric Carmen and the Raspberries) -- I must admit a certain deja vu at reviewing the 1998 literary crop. These volumes don't just remind me of better works which made the list in former years, they often (start ital)cite(end ital) those books, at length. 1) Well worth mentioning is a "how-to" paperback of about 180 pages, and one of the few volumes I've read cover-to-cover of late, "Boston on Guns & Courage," by the pseudonymous Boston T. Party, available from Javelin Press, P.O. Box 31, Ignacio, Colo. 81137-0031. The book is $17, or $10.20 apiece for six to 31 copies, but the publishers quirkily request payment only in cash (that gets you an autographed copy) or payee-blank (negotiable) money orders , threatening to return checks of money orders with a named payee. Mr. Party is of the opinion that the "thugs" who outlawed the private possession of gold in 1933 "should have been strung up from the first day," and properly dismisses many modern gun owners as "serfs with guns," demanding "If you won't fight for your Liberty, then sell your guns to us now before they're confiscated without compensation." He then spends the bulk of his book running through the options for Americans who have finally decided to arm themselves against incipient tyranny, running through the pros and cons of each caliber and type of weapon; gun safety; current and likely future gun control laws; how to buy guns without having them registered ... a handy little book, even if it's sketchy in places. Of course, I disagree with many of the author's specific recommendations. (In .308 battle rifles, if you can believe it, Mr. Party actually favors the tin-and-plastic Belgian FN-FAL over the sturdy American M-14 and its civilian version, the M-1A. Of taste there is certainly no accounting. And it's a tad careless to recommend the Soviet Tokarev SVT 40 -- "very nicely made" -- given the weapon's well-known propensity to shred its own firing pins, isn't it?) But in this author we find a kindred spirit, correctly reporting that "The feds hope to 'decapitate' the Freedom Movement by simultaneously arresting and/or eliminating several hundred key people," something they've already demonstrated with their infiltration via agents provocateurs of the burgeoning 1990s militia movement, albeit not quite "simultaneously." The author quotes Arthur B. Robinson explaining "The gun controllers are not deterred by the facts about guns and crime, because their primary fear is not of criminals. They fear ordinary Americans whose lives and freedom their policies are destroying. In this fear and in their world, they are on target." He gathers together great swatches from books which have already made this "Most Dangerous" list in previous years (and which are still highly recommended), including L. Neil Smith's "Pallas," Bill Branon's "Let Us Prey," Jim Bovard's "Lost Rights" (Laissez-Faire Books at 800-326-0996), Claire Wolfe's "101 Things To Do Till the Revolution" (Loompanics at 800-380-2230, or Laissez-Faire), and of course John Ross' masterful novel of the put-upon gun culture, "Unintended Consequences" ($28.95 from hard-to-find Accurate Press in St. Louis, so try Paladin Press at 800-392-2400, or else Loompanics), from which we again hear: "These government slugs ban our guns and they ban our magazines and they ban our ammo. They ban suppressors that make our guns quieter and then they ban outdoor shooting ranges because our guns are too loud. They ban steel-core ammunition because it's 'armor-piercing,' then they close down our indoor ranges where people shoot lead-core bullets because they say we might get lead poisoning. ... "If we sell one gun that's gone up in value, they can charge us with dealing firearms without a federal dealer's license, which is a felony. If we get a dealer's license, they say we are not really in business, and report us to our local authorities for violating zoning ordinances by running a commercial venture out of a residence. ... "Then, if they suspect we've ignored the $200 tax process, on the guns where the wood and steel is too long or too short, they'll spend over a million dollars watching us for months, then they'll shoot our wives and children or burn us all alive," for which no federal agent has ever spent a single night in jail. And this, mind you, in a nation with a Constitution which guarantees the federal government will never, in any way, "infringe" the right of the people to keep and bear military-style arms. # # # 2) With a lot less politics and a lot more pictures, my second selection this year is also a gun book, Timothy Mullin's "Testing the War Weapons," in which the author actually carries around and test fires virtually every surplus military long arm a modern American can lay hands on (and several we cannot -- who's going to buy (start ital)me(end ital) a Flapper-era, $3,500, fully-automatic Belgian FN-D?), from the widely-ridiculed Italian Carcano ("the JFK rifle"), to the grossly overrated German Gewehr 3. Based on his own quite sensible criteria, Mr. Mullin then fearlessly reports which of these guns actually prove far handier in the field than one might expect ... and which prove quite the opposite. It's a marvellous project well carried out, in which anyone interested in old (or not-so-old) military firearms is likely to find a few pleasant surprises - and probably something to argue with. One very big demerit to the editors at Paladin Press (P.O. Box 1307, Boulder, CO 80306) for the mediocre quality of the B&W photo reproductions in "Testing the War Weapons," and for the horrendous proofreading. But this is still a wonderful book, in 8X10 trade paperback at about $40. 3) No, our friends and relatives are not going to be reading only about guns this holiday season. Anyone interested in alternative medicine or the "War on Drugs" should be happy to receive Steve Kubby's heartfelt and (in the end) heartwarming book, "The Politics of Consciousness," from Loompanics Unlimited, P.O Box 1197, Port Townsend, Wash. 98368. Again, Mr. Kubby's work stands on the shoulders of such predecessors as Jack Herer ("The Emperor Wears No Clothes", Hemp Publishing, Van Nuys, Calif.), Terence McKenna ("The Archaic Revival," from Bantam Books, and "Food of the Gods," from HarperCollins), and Schultes & Hofmann ("Plants of the Gods," Healing Arts Press, Rochester, Vermont) which are widely cited here, and highly recommended (by me) in their own right. Mr. Kubby (this year's Libertarian candidate for governor of California, I believe) is one of those who has come to realize that the War on Drugs is not merely puritanism given the backing of armed government in violation of the First Amendment, but something much more insidious and evil yet: nothing less than the denial of the mental and spiritual health which mankind is meant to be allowed to achieve, through the direct religious experiences of the entheogenic (hallucinogenic) plants. Chapter headings like "The War on Freedom," "Criminalizing Nature," "Western Civilization is the Disease," "Molecular Theology," and "Downloading the Cosmic Design" give some idea of the delightful subversiveness of this 150-page, 8X10 paperback, with its psychedelic cover. But if you want to do some smug Drug Warrior's psyche more harm than would likely be accomplished by 250 micrograms of orange sunshine, simply get him or her to read the six-page chapter "Manna from Heaven." What (start ital)was(end ital) the bread that fell like rain from heaven in Exodus Chapter 16, verse 4? What (start ital)was(end ital) the "small round thing" that "lay as small as the hoar frost on the ground," which had to be eaten immediately in the morning, lest it "breed worms and stink"? What (start ital)was(end ital) the God-given substance which was so holy to the Israelites that they later placed the last of it in a golden pot in the Ark of the Covenant (Hebrews, Chapter 9, verse 3)? Order up a bunch of Mr. Kubby's liberating book, and spread them around. # # # 4) Finally comes a book I firmly and fearlessly recommend, while I also feel obliged to place my readers' interests above any possible sensitivity of the author, and thus to offer an unusual caveat: Just as some patrons of the visual arts have found delight in the very refusal of such "primitives" as Grandma Moses to study the rules of perspective and photographic realism, celebrating on its own terms the resultant cross between "professional" painting and the decorative folk art of the quilted bedspread, so must I note that the novel "TEOTWAWKI -- The End of the World as We Know It," by James Wesley, Rawles (comma as written), soon to be released in trade paperback from Huntington House Publishing as "Patriots: Surviving the Coming Collapse," succeeds in a similar dimension between professional fiction and the delightfully naive tale-telling of children and the childlike. I got my copy - an 8X10 Internet download with a color-copied cover -- from Mike McNulty (author of the Academy Award-nominated video "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" -- which should be on this list even if it's not a book) and Bob Glass, publisher of the promising new magazine "The Partisan: Journal of the American Freedom Fighter" ($20 per year from P.O. Box 1085, Longmont, CO 80502) at this year's Soldier of Fortune Expo. Still hunting for the first good book to be based on the upcoming "Y2K" crisis, I dug in ... and discovered that Mr. Rawles has indeed put together a thoughtful, thought-provoking, and well-researched survival manual, indicating in highly pragmatic terms how folks might well prepare for social unrest or breakdown of our established economic, commercial and political order in years to come -- prepare not just to squat on some piece of dirt, mind you, but to actually maintain a civilized lifestyle. Then, Mr. Rawles opted to deck out this intriguing, useful research as a work of fiction so bad -- by any traditional measure -- as to cross the line on many occasions into unintentional knee-slapping hilarity. The good guys pray to Jesus before each militia foray, and resist dividing up the gear even of their dead comrades, since that would be "stealing." The bad guys are -- I think I've got this right -- homosexual communists who actually carry around copies of Mao's Little Red Book, and who get their nourishment by preserving the best body parts of the little human babies they murder in their travels. Eventually, Idaho is invaded (of course) by a gang of U.N. mercenaries out of Brussels, though of course they and their tank columns are eventually defeated by the ingenuity and just plain spunk of the outnumbered Patriot defenders. Subtlety? Ambiguity? Not here in God's country, pardner. This thing makes the movie "Red Dawn" (which I also love) look restrained. And yet, in the midst of the nonsense, Mr. Rawles really can write a quite moving, effective, and realistic scene, as when a lone patriot rifleman in a well-chosen position sacrifices himself to inflict dozens of casualties on an advancing enemy column, holding them up for most of a day. But I have given fair warning: Just as Mr. Churchill admitted democracy was a terrible system -- except when compared to all the alternatives -- so is TEOTWAWKI a jaw-droppingly lunkheaded piece of fiction ... behind which is hidden a quite useful book, the first useful working sketch of a "Y2K" scenario which I have yet discovered ... unless we count "Atlas Shrugged" or "A Canticle for Liebowitz" or "A Boy and His Dog," of course. Which we probably should. (Mr. Rawles also sells pre-1899 antique firearms, which can be purchased via mail order without federal controls, via Clearwater Trading Co., P.O. Box 642, Penn Valley, Calif. 95946 -- e-mail rawles(a)usa.net -- a fine fellow, surely.) Order one of his remaining self-published copies through the same Penn Valley address at about $28, or via Patriot Products, 6595 Odell Place, Suite G, Boulder CO 80301, or ask your local bookstore to locate a copy of the new Huntington House edition, "Patriots: Surviving the Coming Collapse" (ISBN 1-56384-155-X) from their wholesalers, or via the Huntington House toll free order line at 800-749-4009. And have a merry Christmas. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin(a)lvrj.com. The web sites for the Suprynowicz column are at http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vinyard.htm, and http://www.nguworld.com/vindex. The column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin(a)lvrj.com The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it. -- John Hay, 1872 The most difficult struggle of all is the one within ourselves. Let us not get accustomed and adjusted to these conditions. The one who adjusts ceases to discriminate between good and evil. He becomes a slave in body and soul. Whatever may happen to you, remember always: Don't adjust! Revolt against the reality! -- Mordechai Anielewicz, Warsaw, 1943 * * * --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Re: Article V - an analysis (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 15:34:35 -0800 > From: Todd Larason <jtl(a)molehill.org> > Subject: Re: Article V - an analysis (fwd) > On 981125, Jim Choate wrote: > > > > Why is this problematic? > > Whether it's problematic or not depends on your goals. It gives reason to > doubt that your interpretation of the effects of a Convention called under the > current constitution would hold, as (as you now say), such a Convention > has the power to change the rules by definition. How? Explain what part of Article V leaves this hole open. Explain the relevance of the operational proceedures used during the transition from the Articles to the current Constitution to the modification of the Constitution itself within the bounds of its own structure? Congress wasn't even involved in that original process because it didn't technicaly exist until after the ratification. Why would a precedence involving state legislatures be found to hold on a national legislature? There is also the issue that the Constitution once duly implimented is the supreme law of the land and it takes precedence over precedence. This is apples and oranges. Bottem line, if 3/4 of the states ratify there isn't anything that keeps it from being law. The most that Congress can say is whether it's a direct vote in the legislature or a vote by convention. > There was a time period (I don't know how long, but certainly no more than > a few months) where some states were operating underthe Constitution and > others were still under the Acts. Which is relevant how? > I don't think it specifies, but what has always happened is that the *same > resolution* which proposes the amendment specifies which ratification method > will be used. That can't work if the resolution comes from the states. Only Congress has the authority to decide that issue. So the only way a proposed amendment can be placed up for debate and at the same time specify how it is to be voted on at the state level is if it comes from Congress in the first place. A proposal submitted by the states would force the debate of how it was to be decided. Once that was settled it would be passed back to the appropriate state legislature for direct vote or the initiation of a convention if sufficient votes could be found. > There's only a time limit because Congress has started specifying one, in the > same resolution which proposes the amendment and specifies the ratification > method. (Exception: in the case of the ERA, I believe they later extended the > limit). The power to specify a time limit isn't mentioned in the Constitution > as you note, but has also never been tested. I assume your speaking of the prohibition amendments again and their limits (7 years I seem to remember). That raises an interesting point. Suppose that the states submit an amendment proposal, can Congress modify it? I'd say not because of the 10th. If they could then the power of the states to submit amendments would be moot. ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Maturity Is Needed
by Mixmaster 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In response to: cyp >Jim Choate is so stupid that even when he accidentally gets something >right, he quickly "corrects" himself so that he is wrong again: > >> I had typed x/ln(x) as the asymptotic limit for the number of primes less >> than x. >> >> This is incorrect. It should be, >> >> x/log(x) >>Wrong, doofus. x/ln(x) is the correct asymptotic limit. What role could >>logs to the base 10 possibly play? Do you think God favors the number 10? >>What a fool you are!Your observations over the years usually seemed >>thoughtful, and intelligent, and therefore helpful. What an human waste this guy is. It reminds me of the old days of Reputation. A boorish attack reflects more poorly on the attacker than the victim, if it is an inappropriate attack. Even if stupid, or just mistkaen, a comment here is intended toward a larger, instructive purpose. This idiot just wastes bandwidth. Life's too short for this crap. Perhaps it's worth trying to reason with people a bit: Victorian times, like ours today, were a period of huge changes, which meant behavioral changes. It cannot be an accident that manners, good form, and respectable society merged into the legendary image of modern social graces. It was done of efficiency, and, so, of necessity. Inefficient entities decay in capitalism. Manners were needed for efficiency. Only today do they seem quaint, or insulting of class or social station. They were where the action was, among professionals trying to forge new economic relationships. This immature jerk is gonna lose. An Educated Observer

1 0

the economist on cybercash
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

on disappointing/lackluster acceptance of digital cash.. mondex,visa,1st virtual,digicash etc http://www.economist.com/editorial/freeforall/current/index_fn7557.html

1 0

Re: manners....
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:54 AM 11/19/98 +0800, Bernardo B. Terrado wrote: >Well I thought this list was a list of intellectuals, not only good in >hacks and coding and programming and the likes but also well "tailored" >with their manners, I have posted similar mails asking something but I >have never received one like this. At least the less obvious thing to do >is to ignore my message, simply delete it!, is that a hard thing to do? Yo, Bernie - until you started asking for pirated commercial software, I was wondering whether you were trolling by asking newbie questions or just a real newbie who hadn't looked at any of the literature yet. Knapsacks are, after all, broken long ago, and anything written since about 1980 that talks about them will also say that. I'd recommend getting Bruce Schneier's "Applied Cryptography" and spending a while with it, then looking for academic stuff beyond that if you want, and also reading the documentation for PGP for practical stuff (in particular, Phil's comments on Snake Oil.) There are also some FAQs out there, such as the sci.crypt FAQ. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart(a)pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

1 0

Maturity Is Needed
by Mixmaster 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In response to: ein >Jim Choate is so stupid that even when he accidentally gets something >right, he quickly "corrects" himself so that he is wrong again: > >> I had typed x/ln(x) as the asymptotic limit for the number of primes less >> than x. >> >> This is incorrect. It should be, >> >> x/log(x) >>Wrong, doofus. x/ln(x) is the correct asymptotic limit. What role could >>logs to the base 10 possibly play? Do you think God favors the number 10? >>What a fool you are!Your observations over the years usually seemed >>thoughtful, and intelligent, and therefore helpful. What an human waste this guy is. It reminds me of the old days of Reputation. A boorish attack reflects more poorly on the attacker than the victim, if it is an inappropriate attack. Even if stupid, or just mistkaen, a comment here is intended toward a larger, instructive purpose. This idiot just wastes bandwidth. Life's too short for this crap. Perhaps it's worth trying to reason with people a bit: Victorian times, like ours today, were a period of huge changes, which meant behavioral changes. It cannot be an accident that manners, good form, and respectable society merged into the legendary image of modern social graces. It was done of efficiency, and, so, of necessity. Inefficient entities decay in capitalism. Manners were needed for efficiency. Only today do they seem quaint, or insulting of class or social station. They were where the action was, among professionals trying to forge new economic relationships. This immature jerk is gonna lose. An Educated Observer

1 0

Re: Netscape AOL Instant Messenger Confirmation (kB3bEjeb1I aohelsux)
by Paul H. Merrill 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>Again, some clueless asshole that can't tell the difference between >>solicited responses and Unsolicited spam mouths off. If you would like >>to talk about someone, talk about the jerk who set up an AIM name using >>the outdated address, not the company that repsonded. >> >>PHM >> >>AKA PHMerrill(a)AOL.Com (among other names and addresses) > >Again, the clueless asshole known as Paul *H.* Merrill jumps up and defends >AOL, incompetently-written web sites, and morons everywhere. > I obviously don't defend morons everywhere -- I didn't defend Mr Anonymous. >Someone told AOL to mail cypherpunks(a)toad.com. AOL could have checked to see >if the originating site was under the toad.com domain. This is trivial. They >didn't. It's rather easy to just require that somebody trying to mail an >address under the toad.com domain submit the request from an address under >toad.com. > I regularly send from one domain while requesting a "something" to be dealt with through another domain. (A little something called work, for instance. Shoot, even the ACM.Org address doen't pass that check but it certainly is valid and unambiguously mine. >In other words, Paul, you believe that if somebody goes and types your >address into some system and asks it to send you 512MB of MPEG video, that's >okay because it was solicited. It wasn't solicited by you but somebody >solicited it. > My point exactly -- so when you want to ream someone for the half gig MPEG, ream the requester. >Oops. That's "blatent propoganda." I'd better rephrase. In other words, >Paul, you believe that if somebody goes and types YOUR address into fifty >different systems, signs you up for a bunch of mailing lists, and generally >causes you a lot of inconvenience, that's okay because it was solicited. You >don't know who it was solicited by, but somebody obviously did. If you then >object to the sites sending you mail rather than just silently >unsubscribing yourself every week, are you then just 'some clueless asshole'? > The totality is not Okay. But the individual systems that were solicited to send are not at fault, assuming that they give me an out. OTOH the asshole that requested it all is quite another topic. That "spammer" is the one that should be taken to task. >Are spammers now not to be held accountable for their spamming because they >bought a list of addresses from someone who claimed that the people all >asked to be on the mailing list? > there is a significant difference between buying a list and answering a request. Granted that the net effect of having a confirmation message sent to some one person shows little difference, but the methodology and intent are nt the same at all. >Why don't we just sign Cypherpunks up for Ignition-Point, the FP list, the >ACLU action advisories, Sixdegrees, and whatever else we can find? Or should >We just sign up Paul, really, because he doesn't have a problem with this. >In fact I'm sure we could make some 'marketting research' to show that he >might be interested. Hey let's get the entire CDR subscription list and >sign everybody up for FP and ACLU because if you're on Cypherpunks you're >obviously interested in those things. The analogous activities have been going on for many years and they have never been a Good Thing. > >The root of the problem is sites which require email addresses for no good >reason, and/or don't have the decency to perform a simple check to see if >the domains match. They're lazy. They're irresponsible. When confronted, no >matter how civil, they react much like you do, Paul, and they don't want to >be inconvenienced by having to fix their usually badly-designed web sites. > Anyone that believes that a domain check will do anything other than check a domain is delusional. Hey, they even think like the post awful -- one person, one email address. >If I recall correctly Tim has the same opinion and has stated it a few >times as have others so I'm not alone. > >Now I leave you, Paul, so you can go back to your 24 hour vigil and you and >your quick response team can scour the net for attacks against AOL and the >true clueless assholes, and defend them with your last breath. > Why, thank you. But it is not really needed. >Yet Another 'Clueless Asshole' > I never cease to be amazed at how little grasp of the concept of causality so many presumably technically literate people are today. When one wishes to remove a problem, it is a much better approach to attack the cause than to attack the symptom. PHM

1 0

Re: Re: Netscape AOL Instant Messenger Confirmation (kB3bEjeb1I aohels
by Paul H. Merrill 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----Original Message----- From: lcs Mixmaster Remailer <mix(a)anon.lcs.mit.edu> To: paul h. merrill <paulmerrill(a)acm.org>; cypherpunks(a)einstein.ssz.com <cypherpunks(a)einstein.ssz.com> Date: Wednesday, November 25, 1998 12:20 AM Subject: Re: Re: Netscape AOL Instant Messenger Confirmation (kB3bEjeb1I aohels >Do you even bother to read the posts you try to flame? Read the last part of >that. > Yes, I do. I do not buy the domain check idea due to the unworkability in a changing and multi-faceted society. I do not buy the concept the anyone that sends a piece that you don't want is a "spammer" (there really are enough of them out there already without diluting the Title through misnomers.) I do not buy attacking symptoms and ignoring causes -- and in this case Causers. PHM >Paul H. Merrill wrote: >> >>Again, some clueless asshole that can't tell the difference between >>solicited responses and Unsolicited spam mouths off. If you would like >>to talk about someone, talk about the jerk who set up an AIM name using >>the outdated address, not the company that repsonded. >> >>PHM >> >>AKA PHMerrill(a)AOL.Com (among other names and addresses) >> >>Anonymous wrote: >>> >>> This does wonders for my opinion of AOL. Even the administration has no clue. >>> >>> AOL administration spammed the Cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> list, using >>> an address for Cypherpunks which has been defunct for over a year now, with: >>> >>> >Thank you for registering for Netscape AOL Instant Messenger! >>> > >>> >Your registration for screen name aohelsux has been received. >>> > >>> >Please reply to this message within 48 hours to complete >>> >the registration process. Simply reply to the present message >>> >and type 'OK' as the text of your message. >>> >>> P.S. "Well they just responded to an address someone gave them," like >>> certain advocates of AOL, lamers, and Microsoft we have on the list have >>> said, is not an excuse. It's easy to set up domain validation. The spammers >>> just don't care.

1 0