- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

CDR: Re: Phil Zimmerman Profiled
by David Honig 09 Nov '00

09 Nov '00

At 05:57 PM 11/9/00 -0500, Meyer Wolfsheim wrote: >> example, about Gnu Privacy Guard (GnuPG), an open source competitor to PGP. >> There's no doubt in Zimmermann's mind that GnuPG suffers for being managed >> by programmers. He offers the Blowfish encryption method as an example: "I >> would never, ever allow Blowfish to be implemented in PGP, because it's not >> as good a design as Twofish; Twofish is superior. PGP 7 implements Two fish. >> Yet we see GnuPG implemented Blowfish." > >Okay, I just spent 15 minutes searching the web for information on >vulnerabilities in Blowfish. Didn't find anything. Certainly I could have >tried harder... but does anyone know of any risks of using Blowfish? There are none. Blowfish has a very large key setup time, so unless you cache its internal state, its a poor choice for *certain* apps ---those where you need to switch contexts frequently. But it is very strong, because of that key schedule, and its structure. Twofish has a much faster key setup. I can't imagine what PKZ what talking about otherwise, and what you've quoted is intriguing for that reason.

1 0

None
by Robert Huddleston 09 Nov '00

09 Nov '00

believer(a)telepath.com) Subject: ip: REPUBLICANS CAN'T WIN THIS WAR By: Carole Ward http://www.etherzone.com/ward111600.html Ether Zone UTOPIAN WOLVES OUT NUMBER THE SHEEP REPUBLICANS CAN'T WIN THIS WAR By: Carole Ward Pity the Republicans. I heard conservative Robert Novak grouse that Al Gore's poll numbers don't mean Democrats are succeeding, but that Republicans are failing. Not true Bob. You are just out numbered. Democracy has finally delivered the death blow to republican government. Somebody once said democracy is the honeymoon of stupidity. What a great line. I have predicted a renaissance of Utopianism as boomers begin to think about old age. Retiring boomers will demand nothing less than meals-on-wheels -delivered to their RV parks in Costa Rica as part of their Medicare+accounts. Free drugs and med-evac, delivered anywhere, any continent, anytime to any mountain. High grade hemp will be reclassified and distributed for achy muscles or menopause. Conservatives, by definition cannot win this war. It's not Dubya's fault, really. The utopian police state has a new allure for aging boomers. When you add these particularly solipsistic and venal breed of parasites to the existing pool, you have a nasty brew. And it feeds on liberty. This election is an auction - and Al Gore may just win it. I wince when I hear Limbaugh, Medved, Coulter and company, trying to intellectualize the "mood of the country" --shaking their heads, asking where they went wrong with women. That's a no brainer. Just tell women you'll give them free day care, healthcare, and underwrite their poor choices with somebody elses money. They deserve it, and you're gonna give it to em. Truth can only hurt you. Silly Gopers criticize each other on principle when they differ, believing they can appeal to our higher natures. --sort of like Depok Chopra without the shakedown for tapes, books and T Shirts. But Democrats know politics is not principled. Its organized crime. For 8 years the GOP has been asking, "Where is the outrage"? What outrage? Democrats don't vote for piety. They don't vote FOR Democrats. They vote AGAINST Republicans. Ask any Democrat what he/she thinks of Bill Clinton. Odds are they think he's a bit of a thug, a caricature of the boozy, lascivious and irredeemably corrupt southern pol - a thoroughly loathsome character. But no matter. He's not a Republican. So he's got their vote. Democrats should rightly be called Anti-Republicans. That's why we couldn't get rid of the Arkansas Sopranos even after the bodies started piling up, planes went boom and a statistically improbable number of FOB's committed suicide or fell out of the sky. ---See, Billy delivers the goods. I believe we could video tape the entire Clinton cabinet gang raping a kindergarten class and democrats would caution us that it was illegal to video tape them without consent. So how do they do it? How do Democrats enjoy such loyalty from Anti-Republicans? Well, it's a spoils system in a host/parasite paradigm. Anti-Republicans want more of what Republicans have, or hate what Republicans are, and will not conform to conservative expectations for citizens. So when the federal government steals 1.7 trillion a year from us, dems say --Good! Footnote: Gays are a special subsection of the anti-republican coalition. Their singular concern in this battle is legislation insuring their right to prime-time, drive-by sex, while the transfer of wealth occurs. So, we have reached critical mass as we tumble toward euro-trash social democracy. The parasites outnumber the hosts and an IV drip on producers may not be enough to sate the sheer numbers of 'needy'. And each beneficiary is clamoring for more. Utopians need to legislate our thoughts and profile the aberrant among us who still believe in the privacy of thoughts, sex, and property. So who are we up against? 1. Government workers. That includes teachers. These little blood-suckers multiply like roaches and don't like compensation tied to performance or tenure. They succeed only at our expense. [fiercely Anti-Republican street fighters] 2. Unions. ---see above without the breeding capacity from government funding. --but hey, anything's possible. 3. Women. ---Unfortunately they see government as surrogate parent and husband. I've always said women are natural socialists. They have been trading away liberty for promises of security since we jumped out of the trees. They will vote police state utopia every time, if they think it will be easier for them. I would gladly give up my vote if they were banished as a group from electoral politics. What was Jack Nicholson's great line when asked the difference between a man and a woman? --"Take away logic and accountability," he said with signature smirk. 3. Blacks and Latinos --Too many are addicted to the drip system. Add a desire for open borders so their friends and relatives can share the spoils. [these are traditional Anti-Republicans who equate a brown man voting Republican with chickens voting Colonel Saunders.] 4. Trial Lawyers. --they feed on the conflict between warring parasites. A utopian police state guarantees that everyone is guilty of something, sometime. It's a bonanza for defense attorneys and prosecutors as well. 5. Gays. --they cling to dems, the only ones who understand their pain. ["Heterosexuals probe each other's body parts on prime time TV. Why can't we?"] Depressed readers, there is an upside to this --really. This grumpy libertarian offers that we need MORE socialism and MORE utopian blather, not less, if we're going to have the knock-down-drag-out necessary to regain the soul of our Jeffersonian Republic. It's the drip drip drip of Utopianism in the first half of this century that left us in this hazy-semi-conscious-lock-step, each time gubmint says "pay up" or else. Why not say "Bring it on mutha!" Bring it all on - all of it. Utopians in all three branches of government. Confiscate the guns. Photo cop in every intersection. Breathalyzer and retina scans at freeway ramps. 70% death tax [just to churn the economy for the benefit of the "needy".] Cradle to grave healthcare will endure only until somebody discovers that certain "behaviors" mean higher "costs". Utopians may be surprisingly niggardly with public dollars when exponential demand by the "unfit", "imperfect", and "unhealthy", drain the treasury of discretionary dollars which could be used to rescue aging rock climbers and provide necessary paths for bicycle riding city dwellers. We will make them hate each other as much as they hate us. But wait, you say, we can't do this. It means the end of life as we know it. Utopia requires a police state. And a police state ends constitutional government. Constitutional government has already been reduced to what the meaning of is - is. It's whatever they say it is so long as they deliver the goods. Election 2000 can only be described as 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. So whaddya think is cookin? ---------- Carole Ward writes from Santa Fe and is a frequent contributor to Ether Zone. Carole Ward can be reached at wardcarole(a)email.msn.com Published in the November 16, 2000 issue of Ether Zone. Copyright © 2000 Ether Zone. (http://etherzone.com) Reposting permitted with this message intact. --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.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

None
by Robert Huddleston 09 Nov '00

09 Nov '00

believer(a)telepath.com) Subject: ip: REPUBLICANS CAN'T WIN THIS WAR By: Carole Ward http://www.etherzone.com/ward111600.html Ether Zone UTOPIAN WOLVES OUT NUMBER THE SHEEP REPUBLICANS CAN'T WIN THIS WAR By: Carole Ward Pity the Republicans. I heard conservative Robert Novak grouse that Al Gore's poll numbers don't mean Democrats are succeeding, but that Republicans are failing. Not true Bob. You are just out numbered. Democracy has finally delivered the death blow to republican government. Somebody once said democracy is the honeymoon of stupidity. What a great line. I have predicted a renaissance of Utopianism as boomers begin to think about old age. Retiring boomers will demand nothing less than meals-on-wheels -delivered to their RV parks in Costa Rica as part of their Medicare+accounts. Free drugs and med-evac, delivered anywhere, any continent, anytime to any mountain. High grade hemp will be reclassified and distributed for achy muscles or menopause. Conservatives, by definition cannot win this war. It's not Dubya's fault, really. The utopian police state has a new allure for aging boomers. When you add these particularly solipsistic and venal breed of parasites to the existing pool, you have a nasty brew. And it feeds on liberty. This election is an auction - and Al Gore may just win it. I wince when I hear Limbaugh, Medved, Coulter and company, trying to intellectualize the "mood of the country" --shaking their heads, asking where they went wrong with women. That's a no brainer. Just tell women you'll give them free day care, healthcare, and underwrite their poor choices with somebody elses money. They deserve it, and you're gonna give it to em. Truth can only hurt you. Silly Gopers criticize each other on principle when they differ, believing they can appeal to our higher natures. --sort of like Depok Chopra without the shakedown for tapes, books and T Shirts. But Democrats know politics is not principled. Its organized crime. For 8 years the GOP has been asking, "Where is the outrage"? What outrage? Democrats don't vote for piety. They don't vote FOR Democrats. They vote AGAINST Republicans. Ask any Democrat what he/she thinks of Bill Clinton. Odds are they think he's a bit of a thug, a caricature of the boozy, lascivious and irredeemably corrupt southern pol - a thoroughly loathsome character. But no matter. He's not a Republican. So he's got their vote. Democrats should rightly be called Anti-Republicans. That's why we couldn't get rid of the Arkansas Sopranos even after the bodies started piling up, planes went boom and a statistically improbable number of FOB's committed suicide or fell out of the sky. ---See, Billy delivers the goods. I believe we could video tape the entire Clinton cabinet gang raping a kindergarten class and democrats would caution us that it was illegal to video tape them without consent. So how do they do it? How do Democrats enjoy such loyalty from Anti-Republicans? Well, it's a spoils system in a host/parasite paradigm. Anti-Republicans want more of what Republicans have, or hate what Republicans are, and will not conform to conservative expectations for citizens. So when the federal government steals 1.7 trillion a year from us, dems say --Good! Footnote: Gays are a special subsection of the anti-republican coalition. Their singular concern in this battle is legislation insuring their right to prime-time, drive-by sex, while the transfer of wealth occurs. So, we have reached critical mass as we tumble toward euro-trash social democracy. The parasites outnumber the hosts and an IV drip on producers may not be enough to sate the sheer numbers of 'needy'. And each beneficiary is clamoring for more. Utopians need to legislate our thoughts and profile the aberrant among us who still believe in the privacy of thoughts, sex, and property. So who are we up against? 1. Government workers. That includes teachers. These little blood-suckers multiply like roaches and don't like compensation tied to performance or tenure. They succeed only at our expense. [fiercely Anti-Republican street fighters] 2. Unions. ---see above without the breeding capacity from government funding. --but hey, anything's possible. 3. Women. ---Unfortunately they see government as surrogate parent and husband. I've always said women are natural socialists. They have been trading away liberty for promises of security since we jumped out of the trees. They will vote police state utopia every time, if they think it will be easier for them. I would gladly give up my vote if they were banished as a group from electoral politics. What was Jack Nicholson's great line when asked the difference between a man and a woman? --"Take away logic and accountability," he said with signature smirk. 3. Blacks and Latinos --Too many are addicted to the drip system. Add a desire for open borders so their friends and relatives can share the spoils. [these are traditional Anti-Republicans who equate a brown man voting Republican with chickens voting Colonel Saunders.] 4. Trial Lawyers. --they feed on the conflict between warring parasites. A utopian police state guarantees that everyone is guilty of something, sometime. It's a bonanza for defense attorneys and prosecutors as well. 5. Gays. --they cling to dems, the only ones who understand their pain. ["Heterosexuals probe each other's body parts on prime time TV. Why can't we?"] Depressed readers, there is an upside to this --really. This grumpy libertarian offers that we need MORE socialism and MORE utopian blather, not less, if we're going to have the knock-down-drag-out necessary to regain the soul of our Jeffersonian Republic. It's the drip drip drip of Utopianism in the first half of this century that left us in this hazy-semi-conscious-lock-step, each time gubmint says "pay up" or else. Why not say "Bring it on mutha!" Bring it all on - all of it. Utopians in all three branches of government. Confiscate the guns. Photo cop in every intersection. Breathalyzer and retina scans at freeway ramps. 70% death tax [just to churn the economy for the benefit of the "needy".] Cradle to grave healthcare will endure only until somebody discovers that certain "behaviors" mean higher "costs". Utopians may be surprisingly niggardly with public dollars when exponential demand by the "unfit", "imperfect", and "unhealthy", drain the treasury of discretionary dollars which could be used to rescue aging rock climbers and provide necessary paths for bicycle riding city dwellers. We will make them hate each other as much as they hate us. But wait, you say, we can't do this. It means the end of life as we know it. Utopia requires a police state. And a police state ends constitutional government. Constitutional government has already been reduced to what the meaning of is - is. It's whatever they say it is so long as they deliver the goods. Election 2000 can only be described as 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. So whaddya think is cookin? ---------- Carole Ward writes from Santa Fe and is a frequent contributor to Ether Zone. Carole Ward can be reached at wardcarole(a)email.msn.com Published in the November 16, 2000 issue of Ether Zone. Copyright © 2000 Ether Zone. (http://etherzone.com) Reposting permitted with this message intact. --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.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

CDR: Big Brother looms in British offices
by An Metet 09 Nov '00

09 Nov '00

Law permitting employers to snoop on workers' communications causes concern JEN ROSS Special to The Globe and Mail; With a file from reporter Natalie Southworth Thursday, November 9, 2000 LONDON -- Amid the clatter of keyboards in a busy Internet caf in Central London, a man in a navy suit stares glassy-eyed at his flat computer screen. Owen is e-shopping for a new laptop -- one of the many personal activities which, he says, he does not dare undertake from work. On Oct. 24, a controversial new British law came into force that allows employers to read employees' e-mail and monitor which Web sites they are visiting during work hours. "Lots of people are really scared about this," says Owen, who would not disclose his surname. Owen is expressing the worry of a growing number of British employees who are turning to Internet cafs and non-work e-mail systems to escape the feeling that Big Brother is watching them at work. To be sure, e-mail in the office has never been totally secure. As a network administrator, Owen has had access to his co-workers' e-mail. But what's new is that now employers can do the monitoring -- they can do it legally, and possibly use the information against their workers. The new law, drawn up under the Regulation of Informatory Power (RIP) Act, gives British companies wide and unprecedented powers of surveillance that other Western countries will be watching closely. In Canada, court rulings have shown that monitoring employee messages can be legal as long as employees are warned in advance. A growing body of U.S. common law indicates that companies have the right to monitor e-mail. But no specific law in either country empowers employers to read e-mail. In Britain, even before the new legislation, there were cases of employees being fired for booking on-line holidays during work hours. In September, 40 workers with cellphone company Orange PLC were let go for exchanging "inappropriate" material over internal e-mail. Owen has also seen co-workers fired for forwarding obscene jokes. But now he fears employers could take unfair advantage of their sweeping new powers and increasingly seek to monitor more information. Even some senior managers oppose the law. Morgan Davis, vice-president of management consulting firm Kaiser Associates International Inc., is in the position of potentially becoming an e-mail snooper -- and a snoopee. "It's a very control-freak type of atmosphere to let an employer read all their employees' e-mail under them," Mr. Davis says. "You can't build trust that way." He says the law can only be just if it allows employers' e-mail to be put under the same scrutiny by employees. Mr. Davis believes the hierarchical nature of the law could potentially have a poisonous effect: "It highlights the divide between employer and employee." But for others, this workplace surveillance isn't a problem. "My e-mail and Web use is provided and paid for by my employer so I don't mind the monitoring," says Tom Elliott, a law reporter for a property magazine. "I think the only people who need to worry are those who are abusing their access." Besides snooping on e-mail, the new law allows employers to listen in to and record phone calls, check who an employee is calling on a cellphone and search the hard drives of laptops, if these items are provided through work. "What if you have to ring the doctor and you can only do it during work hours and your employer can monitor your calls? You could find out you are pregnant or HIV-positive," says Annabel Crooke, a recruitment co-ordinator for Monitor Co., a strategic consulting firm. "There are certain things you just don't want your employer to know." The new law responds to businesses' argument that they need wide access to staff communications -- for example, to answer business mail sent to workers who are home sick, to check for computer viruses, or to investigate leaks of business information. "Personal" e-mail is still supposed to be off-limits. However, most e-mail is not labelled to differentiate it. Once the boss has read far enough to realize the message is private, the damage has been done. Among the law's critics are unions and anti-surveillance campaigners, who argue that it stomps on privacy rights. There is talk of a challenge under the new European Human Rights act, which became law in Britain on Oct. 1. And some companies are simply choosing not to take advantage of the new spying powers at their disposal. Still, there are those who find comfort in the existence of the law. "I'd like to know that I have the right to do it, although I might not actually do it," says bank manager Tom Binks, commenting on the ability to monitor e-mail, phone calls and Web use. He says many employers won't be bothered to spend the time and money to do the monitoring. The law may prove to be a scare tactic that is a deterrent on its own. Another controversial aspect of the law is that it allows greater access to employee communications by police and intelligence services. The RIP act obliges Internet service providers to install listening posts if requested, so that police or intelligence people can monitor e-mail traffic. As a self-employed writer, Walter Kennedy is not subject to the prying eyes of an employer, but says he is outraged that the state can now easily and legally intercept his communications. Mr. Kennedy is worried because he engages in a lot of advocacy work. "This gives them carte blanche to pry into people's personal lives. In a contentious case, the state could distort things."

1 0

CDR: Electoral college (was: Re: More blather from the DEMS on FL]
by Trei, Peter 09 Nov '00

09 Nov '00

> evanmcmullen(a)yahoo.com] wrote: > > what the hell is the electoral college still doing in existance? it > should have gone out w/ unlimited presidential terms.... voting with > their conscience my ass.... voting in a partisan fashion is more like it > [Learn to use your 'Shift' key; it's there for a reason.] I expect that we still have an electoral college because amending the Constitution is a very laborious process, and fixing it has no constituancy; one party is about as likely to benefit from it as another. As to why we have one in the first place.... At the founding of the US, the franchise was far from universal; women, slaves, and non-landowners were excluded - it was felt that such people were either congenitally unfit, or (in the case of the propertyless) too shiftless to exercise a vote responsibly. Voting was regarded as a very important act, and it was neccesary to restrict it to an educated, socially responsible elite, to whom the welfare of their society was a personal interest (this limited franchise also existed in England). At the same time, the FF wanted to have a government which represented the people as a whole. There was a considerable difference to the formation of society in the different states; in the North, there were a very large number of small family farms, the heads of which each qualified as voters. In the South, most of the land was owned by a much smaller number of owners of huge plantations, which might have dozens or hundreds of people, but only one landowner who could vote. Thus, the ratio of voters to the general populace differed between North and South. At the time of the Constitutional convention, Virginia was the most populous state, but it fell into the Southern mode. If all votes were weighed equally in selecting the president, Virginia and the other populous plantation system states would get the short end of the stick. Virginians were a powerful group in the CC, and rammed through the electoral college system. In this, the number of electoral votes was proportional to the total number of people (not just voters) in the state (Indians were not counted, and slaves counted as 3/5s of a free person each). As the franchise was gradually expanded, the role of the electoral college has become more and more irrelevant. Since the Civil Rights movement of the early 60's (the last time a large group gained real voting rights) , it's been about as useful as an appendix This is the first election since then that it's been a problem. That's why we still have it. Peter Trei

2 1

None
by bh28 09 Nov '00

09 Nov '00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Does anybody have a stego program along the lines of Peter Wayner's Mimic Functions? I'm looking for something that you can hand a grammar and a set of bits that will produce sentences in the grammar, plus a decoder that can take the sentences and reconstruct the bits. I have a friend who lives in a kleptocratic country where the local bureaucrats have made it clear they'll confiscate the main email node in his town if they catch traffic they recognize as encrypted, and text in some non-popular language may be less obvious than, say, Mandelbrot sets with stego-bits or other artwork. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think Texto is what you are looking for, and it is available from the cypherpunks archive in the steganography directory. If you can't find it, drop me a private note and I'll mail it to you... --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Mr./Mrs. Lucifer Hi, we are two students studying in Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In order to graduate, we need to have a senior project and we decided to write an application using Steganography. We are especially interested in using Context Free Grammar as a basis to develop the application; in other words, we want to conceal secret messages in seemingly innocuous text. We did some research and found out that mimic function may be able to help us. However, we have a hard time figuring out how this mimic function works and how to actually encode our information. After searching on the Web, we found this message and thought that you might be able to help us to finish our project. Can we read the source code and figure out how to do it? We plan to write the whole application in Java and we want to develope some kind of instant message user interface, like AIM, or ICQ. We will definitely be ethical about coding and documenting all the material that we borrow. This is the link that I found the message: http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.96.08.29-96.09.04/msg00044.html Yours Sincerely, Bae-Shi Huang Chris

1 0

CDR: Where is Jim Bell?
by A. Melon 09 Nov '00

09 Nov '00

Declan; Why haven't you found out yet what happened to Jim Bell? Certainly you could ask questions of Portland PD, whatever, or his mom, find out what they've done with him. This is certainly a newsworthy item. Squelching free speech by terrorizing dissedents is what it's all about.

2 1

CDR: Inferno: What if? (fwd)
by Jim Choate 09 Nov '00

09 Nov '00

____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 18:29:42 -0600 (CST) From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> Reply-To: hell(a)ssz.com To: The Club Inferno <hell(a)einstein.ssz.com> Subject: Inferno: What if? What if this further alienates the younger set and what we're looking at is possibly the first time in history where one society will be replaced in the space of 20-40 years, non-violently and completely, by something only remotely related? It will be a society which embraces technology and individualism in a new uniquely American experiment? ____________________________________________________________________ He is able who thinks he is able. Buddha The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

CDR: Reporting weirdness: Hagelin vs. Browne
by Tim May 09 Nov '00

09 Nov '00

On CNN I watched the election results coming in. They always listed four candidates: Bush, Gore, Nader, and Hagelin. The usual format was Bush/Gore on the "crawl" at the bottom of the screen and then a second page with the crawl having Nader/Hagelin. Sometimes Buchanan was listed. It sure looked like Hagelin was doing better than Browne, the Libertarian Party candidate. Well, here's what the "Washington Post" is reporting as the nearly final tally for the lesser candidates: Harry Browne (Lib.) 0 373,109 0 Howard Phillips (CST) 0 98,224 0 John Hagelin (NLP) 0 87,914 0 James Harris (SWP) 0 11,190 0 L. Neil Smith (Lib.) 0 5,181 0 Monica Moorehead (WW) 0 4,245 0 David McReynolds (Soc.) 0 4,097 0 I guess it was "natural law" that caused CNN (and perhaps other networks) to report on Hagelin over Browne. The Libertarian Party should request a "Do-over!" like the Palm Beach Jews are now demanding. --Tim May -- ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.

3 2

CDR: Re: A successful lawsuit means Gore wins!
by George＠Orwellian.Org 09 Nov '00

09 Nov '00

Marc <marc(a)mtjeff.com> wrote: # # However, FL 101.5609 is a much clearer point against # the "must be to the right" claims. # # 101.5609(6): # Voting squares may be placed in front of or in back of the names # of candidates and statements of questions and shall be of such size as If you go by that text... Either "in front of", Or "in back of". It's a basic choice of one format or the other. Otherwise "And/Or" would have been used.

2 1