- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly]
by Mike Duvos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> writes: [Fluffy Gilmore apologia by Declan expunged] Two small points. 1. The rift between Gilmore/EFF and Cypherpunks is hardly of recent origin, and dates back to when the EFF first demonstrated to horrified Cypherpunks that its policy would be one of appeasement and capitulation towards clearly unacceptable legislation. This is all in the archives, including Tim May's essay on why he chose not to renew his EFF membership. 2. The article fails to mention Gilmore's new nickname. :) -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $

1 0

The Konformist: The Chamish Files - The Rabin Hit CONT
by Robalini＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Note: Either you requested to receive a subscription to this e-mail, or someone else recommended you to be placed on this list. If you are interested in a free subscription, please e-mail Robalini(a)aol.com with the subject: I NEED TO KONFORM. (Okay, you can use something else, but it's a cool catch phrase.) Please e-mail me back with subject: CANCEL KONFORMIST if you're not interested in receiving this. Thanks, Robert Sterling. Subj: rubin's secret testimony Date: Sun, 09 Feb, 1997 10:59 AM EDT From: chamish(a)netmedia.net.il THE AMIR-RUBIN DEBATE: YORAM RUBIN'S SECRET TESTIMONY by Barry Chamish The author is privy to an important document withheld from the media and public. It is the testimony of Yitzhak Rabin's personal bodyguard Yoram Rubin taken from the protocols of the trial of Yigal Amir, the alleged assassin of Rabin. As we recall, Rubin was the bodyguard who jumped on Rabin after Amir's alleged first shot and took his second shot in the arm. What is surprising about the secret testimony is how mundane it is compared to what Rubin testified to in open court. That testimony is far more damning to his credibility. The secret testimony begins with the court asking Rubin why the session should be closed. Rubin replied, "I don't mind being photographed but within my story I could touch on matters that I wouldn't want made public." A representative of the intelligence services then explained that operating procedures and details of secret servicemen should not be publicized. The defence argued that the court could decide whether to procede after hearing its questions. The argument did not sway the judges and they decided to hold the session in camera and afterwards sign a declaration that they heard testimony denied the public. The final declaration of the three judges Levy, Rothlevy and Mordick read that, "To prevent speculation, we must relate that the previous testimony was held behind closed doors, is not for public attention and will not be included in the trial protocols." In the most bizarre episodes of the trial, Amir acted as his own attorney and personally questioned Rubin, one of the two men he allegedly shot. Rubin first testified that seven bodyguards in two groups covered Rabin. He was then asked by Amir why Rabin didn't wear a bulletproof vest. He answered, "We judge the situation and decide if a bulletproof vest is called for. Vests are worn only in exceptional cases. The bodyguards never wear them." At this point Rubin makes a rather remarkable statement. "There were previous warnings that an incident could happen." Needless to say, if there were prior warnings, then it was up to Rubin to make certain Rabin was wearing a bulletproof vest. Amir did not jump on this point, rather he returned to the question of the makeup of Rabin's bodyguard formation. Amir- You pointed out that seven bodyguards surrounded Rabin. Rubin- Thre were seven attached to him and twenty in all. I was the commander of one group, I walked beside him, another preceded him, another man walked behind him and he was joined by someone to the left, they formed the pair guarding the rear. One other proceeded forward and another right to cover the fence on Ibn Gvirol Street. Amir- You were with Rabin on the left side. Rubin- No. I didn't walk on his left. Amir now questioned the security arrangements but did not make his point. Instead, he digressed, asking questions about whether bulletproof vests can be discerned under clothing. His attorney, Jonathan Goldberg addressed Rubin to help get Amir back on the right track. Defence- Was the protective ring around Rabin different at this rally than at other events because according to the defendant, he circled the prime minister and saw that his protective guard was different? Rubin- It was different. Defence- The defendant says that at prior events the formation was two bodyguards on the side, one in front and another in back but this time the formation was different. Amir- At the rally when I got into Rabin's range, a hole opened up for me, I walked around someone and came in from the side. I always wanted to kill Rabin but I didn't believe that I'd ever have room to push my hand right to him. But that's what happened in this case. When I walked towards him I saw a gap open and I shot him in the back. In round one, Amir admits to murdering Rabin but has planted deep suspicions that he had help from Rubin and other Shabak agents. He stops just short of saying he couldn't have done it without their help. Of course, the judges didn't see it that way. But any other objective observor would ask why Rabin wasn't wearing a bulletproof vest if warnings against his life were received, why the bodyguards changed their regular formation that night and how did they allow the gap to open which permitted Amir an unhampered shot at the prime minister? end -------------------------------------------- Sent by Barry Chamish - Israeli journalist. Phone/Fax : (972)-2-9914936 E-Mail : chamish(a)netmedia.net.il ************************************************************ The Konformist is interested in accepting articles, opinions, free subscriptions, and advertising. E-mail us at Robalini(a)aol.com, or call (310) 967-4195. The Konformist is a subsidiary of Sterling Operation Solutions, the trouble-shooting problem-solvers for all business needs. We charge on a sliding scale based on the difficulty (and legality) of the proposed solution. Call (310) 967-4195 for further information. Hey kids, don't forget to enter the "Rockin' To Armageddon Sweepstakes", sponsored by The Konformist, the Official Internet Investigative Journal of the 1997 Academy Awards. (Okay, it's not official, but we're anti-authority anyways.) Right down the day, month, year, and time of the end of the world, and, as a tie-breaker, your nominee for the anti-Christ. The winner will receive a t-shirt stating, "I CameClosest To Predicting The Apocalypse, And All I Got Was This Crummy T-Shirt." You will also receive a free one year supply of Twix candy bars. Also, this is a free magazine, but we'll still take your money if you want. Please send cash, check, money orders, and credit card numbers (Visa, Master Card, American Express, or Discover) to: Robert Sterling Post Office Box 24825 Los Angeles, California 90024-0825 ************************************************************ Rob's Place A SITE IS DEDICATED TO SPIRIT, TRUTH, PEACE, JUSTICE, AND FREEDOM http://www.vom.com/rc/home.htm Robalini's Note: This is another Rob. I have no interest in spirit, truth, peace, justice, and/or freedom. I do have an interest in making money.

1 0

The Konformist: News From Waco
by Robalini＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Note: Either you requested to receive a subscription to this e-mail, or someone else recommended you to be placed on this list. If you are interested in a free subscription, please e-mail Robalini(a)aol.com with the subject: I NEED TO KONFORM. (Okay, you can use something else, but it's a cool catch phrase.) Please e-mail me back with subject: CANCEL KONFORMIST if you're not interested in receiving this. Thanks, Robert Sterling. ITEM ONE Date: Sat, 08 Feb, 1997 09:21 PM EDT From: paul watson Rob, Ken is a fellow who had a Dish company south of Dallas and recorded all the network uplink for the whole Waco affair. His tapes were used By Linda Thompson.. Paul Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 12:08:05, -0500 From: MR KEN FAWCETT If no child died on Feb.28- when was the ATF attack? Clearly, Koresh, Snyder, and others conveyed information that children had indeed been injured and or killed. The physical evidence is overwhelming. But there remains a question in my mind to this day as to whether the ATF had actually assaulted the place on Feb. 27. Sound crazy? It came from ATF commander Ted Royster's mouth first. In his first press briefing, on Sunday afternoon, Feb. 28, he began (reading from a prepared statement), "Yesterday's action, I mean today, er. uh it seems like yesterday...." There is much to question about how it would be possible for TV newsmen acting on their own without sattelite-link support, could remain at the site of a two and a half hour "gun battle" that began at approximately 10 AM for the duration, slowly walk out (nearly 2 miles), and have an edited tape of the raid ready to show on Dallas TV at 11:30 AM. Several things about the big lie don't add up! Ken ITEM TWO From: Liberty or Death <ghostpwr(a)dmi.net> Subject: Waco Film >Subject: Review this review of "WACO: The Rules of Engagement" >Date: Wednesday, January 29, 1997 1:03AM > >FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE > >WACO: The Rules of Engagement > >Executive Producer Dan Gifford introduces his new documentary, "Waco: >The Rules of Engagement", which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival, by >saying words to the effect that "This movie is about looking under rocks >and finding what we never wanted to know." The result is an extremely >disturbing film that should be required viewing for all Americans. "Waco" >is a damning indictment of the BATF, the FBI, and the Congressional >hearings which allegedly investigated the disaster in which four ATF agents >and 76 Branch Davidians were killed. > >Gifford and co-executive director Deborah Sommer-Gifford were inspired >to make the film when they were presented with aerial "Forward Looking >Infra-Red" (FLIR) footage taken by FBI surveillance. The FLIR film >provides answers to many of the previously unanswered questions about Waco. >According to Gifford, this film footage had been offered to the major news >networks and was rejected. > >The heart and mind of the film come from the never-before released >FLIR footage and home videos made by the Branch Davidians with a >camera given to them by the FBI. Accompanying them is extensive news >footage of the events at Waco, C-SPAN tapes of the Congressional hearings, >transcripts of conversations between the Davidians and negotiators and >interviews with various experts and key participants >in the disaster. > >The FLIR photography was taken by FBI planes flying over the Davidian >compound to provide surveillance. The film, which looks like ordinary >black and white film, actually measures heat, not light, and is thus >able to provide a great deal of information about weapons fire as well >as the inferno that destroyed the complex. Interpretation of the film >is provided by an independent company. The FLIR footage shows conclusively >that the FBI did fire on the Davidians despite their claims that "not a >single bullet was ever fired" and that the catastrophic fire was started by >the FBI firing grenades into the building after refilling it with the >deadly and flammable CS powder-methylene chloride mixture. It also provides >strong evidence that the FBI stationed personnel with machine guns outside >the only exit from the building, which if true, indicates that the FBI's >intent was to murder the Davidians, not to "rescue hostages". > >The FBI gave the Davidians a video camera and tapes to make videos of >themselves, presumably to help the negotiators understand them better. >These videos were never released because the FBI feared it would generate >too much sympathy for the Davidians and David Koresh. And in fact, the >video does refute the widely-publicized image of Koresh as a crazed, >charismatic and controlling leader, not unlike Charles Manson, and of his >followers as the "wackos from Waco". > >While Koresh was certainly not your "average American", he appears >rational, intelligent, and committed to teaching his religious beliefs. His >followers seem to be ordinary people on a spiritual quest, no different >from many I've encountered in my own spiritual seeking. >They did not appear to be brainwashed automatons, or homicidal maniacs. >Many were foreigners and ironically felt they would be safer studying >religion in the United States. While sexual practices outside the norm did >occur, they were consensual. I saw no evidence of child abuse whatever. >Clearly the FBI, aided by the media, demonized the Branch Davidians in an >attempt to dehumanize them. And dehumanization of the enemy is one of the >prerequisites for genocide. > >Given that the Congressional committee charged with investigating Waco >had access to all the material presented in this film, the >investigation can only be considered a farce and a travesty. With >rare exceptions, the hearings are shown to be nothing more than a >compilation of lies and perjury combined with a lot of self-serving >political grandstanding. What does stand out, and what gives the >film its name, is that neither the ATF nor the FBI ever had a detailed, >organized plan of attack, that there were never any formal rules of >engagement, and that no contingency plans for failure of the raids, >injuries, fire, or other foreseeable problems were ever made. > >While some have commented that the film appears biased against the >government, all the involved agencies were invited to participate, to >be interviewed, and to present their side of the story. They all refused. > And the producers are careful to state that they have no partisan agenda, >that their goal is to reopen debate on Waco. They >appear almost apologetic about the damaging evidence they have collected >and state they wish someone could or would disprove their findings. And >they emphatically do not wish to be associated with "right wing conspiracy >nuts". > >It is of course impossible to do justice to a nearly three hour film >in a review. Despite its length, I found it compelling and not at all >boring or dragging. Technically, the visuals are mostly dependent on the >quality of the archival film, although the sound levels could use some >work. The musical score was dramatic and quite effective. The film >includes views of the charred and mutilated bodies of some who died at >Waco, which I found appropriate, but may be too graphic for some. > >YOU need to see "Waco: The Rules of Engagement." So does every >American of every political persuasion. For the past four years, "Remember >Waco" has been a rallying cry for the "political right" >and gun owners. In response, they have been laughed at, dismissed, >and even accused of being anti-government terrorists. What this film shows >is human beings being methodically gassed and then burned. >Anyone and everyone who has ever vowed "Never again" needs to >view this film and renew that vow. > >This is absolutely not a film to celebrate. There is now evidence >that people within our government are guilty of genocide and crimes against >humanity and that they engaged in a huge cover-up. This >should sadden and sicken each of us, and it should also motivate us >to find ways to prevent such a tragedy from occurring ever again. >If we do not, we become accessories to these crimes. > >"Waco" has not yet been accepted for commercial release, although >negotiations are underway. If you want to see this film, if you feel >others should see this film, then you will have to act. Write to >Sundance and thank them for making this film available. (When you consider >who holds the power at Sundance, it IS rather remarkable >that "Waco" was shown.) Encourage them to support its general >release. If you have contacts with any film distribution companies, >ask them to distribute this film. Write letters to the editors of >newspapers and magazines. Tell everyone you know. If there is a >demand, if it appears profitable to distribute this documentary, Hollywood >will most likely cooperate. > >Remember that this is NOT about partisan politics, Right vs. Left, >gun rights, or other divisive issues. It is about our unalienable >Constitutional rights to religious freedom, freedom from unreasonable >search and seizure, and above all the freedom not to be murdered by >our own government. > >As the Talmud commands: "Thou shalt not stand idly by the blood of thy >brother." > >Further information is available at http://www.waco93.com > >c 1997, Sarah Thompson, M.D. >Permission to reprint granted as long as no changes are made and full >attribution is given. > >Sarah Thompson, M.D. >The Righter > >PO Box 271231 >Salt Lake City, UT 84127-1231 >(801) 966-0257 - voice >(801) 966-7278 - voice/fax >righter(a)therighter.com > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Liberty's Educational Advocacy Forum, Indiana-FIJA, Inc. > Url: http://www.iquest.net/~rjtavel/ > ************************* > Not a high-tech law firm brochure. > Dr. Tavel's Self Help Clinic and Sovereign Law Library > promotes "action that raises the cost of state violence > for its perpetrators (and) that lays the basis for > institutional change " -- Noam Chomsky > For Liberty in Our Lifetime, R.J. Tavel, J.D. - - Monte ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Don't Tread On Me! <<< - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Psalm 33 * ------------------------------------------------------------------------- "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams ************************************************************ The Konformist is interested in accepting articles, opinions, free subscriptions, and advertising. E-mail us at Robalini(a)aol.com, or call (310) 967-4195. The Konformist is a subsidiary of Sterling Operation Solutions, the trouble-shooting problem-solvers for all business needs. We charge on a sliding scale based on the difficulty (and legality) of the proposed solution. Call (310) 967-4195 for further information. Hey kids, don't forget to enter the "Rockin' To Armageddon Sweepstakes", sponsored by The Konformist, the Official Internet Investigative Journal of the 1997 Academy Awards. (Okay, it's not official, but we're anti-authority anyways.) Right down the day, month, year, and time of the end of the world, and, as a tie-breaker, your nominee for the anti-Christ. The winner will receive a t-shirt stating, "I CameClosest To Predicting The Apocalypse, And All I Got Was This Crummy T-Shirt." You will also receive a free one year supply of Twix candy bars. Also, this is a free magazine, but we'll still take your money if you want. Please send cash, check, money orders, and credit card numbers (Visa, Master Card, American Express, or Discover) to: Robert Sterling Post Office Box 24825 Los Angeles, California 90024-0825 ************************************************************ Rob's Place A SITE IS DEDICATED TO SPIRIT, TRUTH, PEACE, JUSTICE, AND FREEDOM http://www.vom.com/rc/home.htm Robalini's Note: This is another Rob. I have no interest in spirit, truth, peace, justice, and/or freedom. I do have an interest in making money.

1 0

Re: crypto restrictions
by Vin McLellan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anand Abhyankar <anand(a)querisoft.com> asked: >1) is it illegal to develop an encryption tool (s/w) outside the US >which uses > 40 bit size session keys and then import that s/w inside of >the US. > >anand.... Hi Anand, Nope! Unless there are export controls in India, your wizards in Bombay or Dehli (pardon, I forget) can offer their US customers the full and unrestricted product of their creativity and genius in algorithms, crypto implementations, and/or crypto protocols. There are no restrictions on encryption software being _imported_ into the US, nor are there (at the moment <sigh>) any legal (as opposed to patent or copyright) restrictions on any encryption software of any strength being _used_ in the US. For that matter, there are no restrictions on encrypted data being transmitted across the US border. And (while it may require a license, apparently an exemption for the product, as opposed to a sales-by-sale license) there are seemingly no -- or at least less -- restrictions on the use of specialized encryption products (within the US) which can generate a "self-decrypting" secure packet which can be transmitted (cross-border, outside the US) and opened, anywhere, by a recipient who has been provided with a password/key out of band. That is how RSA's SecurPC has been able to offer full 128-bit RC4 encryption to secure US-to-Anywhere international file transfers. (As with DES, the US Govt is apparently trying to control the export of a full implementation package -- not the international distribution of a widely-known algorithm, per se. As I understand it, the self-decrypting PCSecure packet does not contain the user interface which allows automatic encryption, the interface can only decrypt. The RC4 algorithm, of course, has to be included in the transmission, and it is inherently reversible -- only the user interface is "crippled" to restrict its use to encrypt. Corrections welcome, if I don't have this exactly right.) The international traffic in self-decrypting "128-bit" products is separate and distinct from the issues involved in the recent modifications of the US export regs, which allow vendors to get approval to export a 56-bit secret-key encryption product (eg. RC4, RC5, or DES) only if the vendor submits a concrete plan, and schedule of implementation, to redesign their (export) product to require key-escrow or trusted-party key-recovery/storage. (In addition whatever recovery key is required by corporate backup policies, this is also, obviously, a mechanism for GAK, "government access to keys" --under US law, hopefully with a court warrant -- and/or whatever backup/key-recovery/GAK-access mechanism might be required various other nations in which those products will be imported, used, or transhipped from.) And with those GAK-adapted implementations, the US govt. will then approve, for the first time, general export of robust 128-bit secret-key products... as they reportedly have for Open Market's SSL, and TIS and Digital crypto products. I hope this is helpful, Suerte, _Vin

1 0

Re: Good Bye Cypherpunks!
by Vin McLellan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May asked: >And was my article the kind of "sludge of spam" and "contentless >name-calling" you thought the Moderation experiment was all about? No. It definitely was not. >And what of the four or five of my posts a week ago which never made it to >either the Main list or the Flames list? The contained no "sludge of spam" >nor "contentless name-calling." What they dealt with was a claim (like this >one) that some posts were not being passed on to either of the two lists, >and that perhaps a conflict of interest was developing. > >Does this still match your "understanding of Sandy's effort"? Sadly, no. _Vin

1 0

Re: More on digital postage
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:31 AM -0800 2/14/97, John C. Randolph wrote: >Tim may says: > >>By the way, I think the "junk fax" and "junk phone call" laws are clearcut >>violations of the First Amendment. I understand why the herd _wants_ these >>laws, as it reduces the costs involved in replacing fax paper, running to >>the telephone only to find someone trying to sell something, etc., but it >>is quite clearly a prior restraint on speech, however well-intentioned. > >I have to disagree here. The junk fax law is a restraint on unauthorised >use of property, i.e. *my* fax machine, *my* phone, etc. > >That tort of unauthorised use of property applies, whether someone's sending >me a fax to sell me spamming software, or whether it's some kid ringing >my doorbell and running away. It's not the speech that I'm fighting, it's >the misuse of my property. > >Freedom of speech does not confer a right to use other people's property. Fair enough, John. I can agree that _tort law_ (civil) might be used. If Party A can convince a jury that Party B did it real damage and can quantify that damage, maybe Party A can collect. My main objection is to to blanket laws, known as "junk mail" laws. The rules for what constitutes "junk" are unclear and give the government regulatory power which I think it should not have. Imagine a bureaucrat deciding that solicitations to join the National Rifle Association are "junk" and ordering the U.S. Postal Service to scrap all such solicitations. Imagine further that alternate delivery systems, such as UPS and FedEx are also notified that delivery of NRA material constitute a crime. (This is not so far-fetched, especially the "alternate delivery" point. If the regulators declare a communication to be junk, it remains junk even if delivered via a different route. If CyberPromotions tries fiddling with the domain names, as they have, it remains junk to CompuServe and to the District Court which upholds their decision to censor mail to customers.) To paraphrase what the CompuServe customer said: "I'll decide what's junk and what's not." --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: [Declan McCullagh: "A List Goes Down In Flames," from Netly]
by Jeremiah A Blatz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> writes: <snip declan's rather well-balanced article> > What does `crusty' mean as applied to a former Intel engineer? Try definition 2 Word crusty (KRUHS'tee) adj. Definition --adj. -ier, -iest. 1. Like or having a crust. 2. Surly or brusk. Jer "standing on top of the world/ never knew how you never could/ never knew why you never could live/ innocent life that everyone did" -Wormhole -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMwS3m8kz/YzIV3P5AQHNJgL+NtjXkx/EHmx9vXm9ucwmonam+2sXRwHB 4bCrz3SM9pk4VbcPhYjx+PRzmX3j9mvesPkkAXaYiUcnFUBmmF35YvIZnTxornfy kE30sVsW4juawhXGRIAWJ/5Ce9lBLPdp =bB+u -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Ok. I'll "put up". If the cypherpunks will have me, -I'll- run the cypherpunks list. Those that know me know that I will *not* censor, moderate, or otherwise alter the content (other than the stuff majordomo does with "resend") of any messages to the list. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Advice is priceless; when it becomes interference it is preposterous.

1 0

Re: Keep it Simple and the Cypherpunk Way
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

what TCM continues to stick his head in the sand over is the fact that the list noise levels have gotten outlandishly out of control over recent times, far beyond anything in memory. what is it due to? it appears that there is a basic law of cyberspace that S/N decreases as you add more people. it seems to be a very obvious and repeatable property. there are some significant lessons about cryptoanarchy that are completely evading TCM. how well does anarchy scale? apparently, not well. TCM would like to pretend that just deleting posts and having outsider filterers is a "solution" to the problem and argues for business as usual, upholding the status quo. the problem is that when you have a deteriorating situation, the status quo is not a valid concept. keeping the status quo means further deterioration. TCM also fails to address the problem of AGENT PROVOCATEURS. the cyberspace list is intensely fragile and susceptible/ vulnerable to them as Vulis demonstrates. it only takes ONE and a lot of tentacles. does TCM propose a solution to this? no, of course not, because he has a blind spot when it comes to realizing the PATENTLY OBVIOUS FLAWS OF CRYPTOANARCHY that stare him in the face. if cpunks had a formal way of making decisions, and some loyalty to each other, instead of BAILING OUT at the slightest difficulty, perhaps the situation would be different, eh? see how quickly people who were once friends simply WALK OUT on each other in the cryptoanarchist approach? where is the loyalty? the sense of working for the greater good? it's gone. TCM simply ABANDONS the list at the first opportunity, and ignores the years of hard work that J.G. has put into it. timmy, cpunks, etc. you are getting a lesson in REALITY. you are seeing the logical conclusion of your views playing out before you. acrimony, bitterness, resignation, chaos, confusion, cacaphony, anarchy.

1 0

Re: Moderation experiment almost over; "put up or shut up"
by Cynthia H. Brown 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk wrote: > Here I can agree, I personally discriminate on the basis of sex, not > in that I believe women inferior to men but rather that I believe > each sex better suited to different tasks and vocations. > That is not, however, to say that I believe women should be prevented > from taking up lines of work that men traditionally hold. > They are free to do so, but as in the example you give later > I would feel uncomfortable having my car serviced by a woman. <flame-retardant suit on> Normally I would ignore this sort of comment (which probably belongs in some soc. newsgroup), but I feel obliged to point out that: - The female <mechanic / scientist / engineer>, in addition to passing the same exams as her male classmates, has probably had to put up with a fair load of B.S. questioning her right and ability to be there. The ones that keep at it long enough to graduate are the ones that *really* want to do whatever it is, and IMHO are more likely to try harder. - If she has been in business for a while, this means she has attracted and kept customers in spite of the attitude displayed in previous posts. There are no "quotas" in the marketplace. - I wonder whether the garage owners have any preference. In my military experience (Signals officer), the (older male) sergeants and chiefs, when given a choice, preferred female radar / radio technicians to male because, in general, they were harder working, had thicker skins, and were more pleasant to deal with. Chicken and Egg: How much of "each sex [is] better suited to different tasks" is due to little girls being pulled away from the Lego and toy trucks, and encouraged to play with Barbies? Being told that they are *pretty* not *smart* as a form of approval? Cynthia =============================================================== Cynthia H. Brown, P.Eng. E-mail: cynthb(a)iosphere.net | PGP Key: See Home Page Home Page: http://www.iosphere.net/~cynthb/ Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received. Klein bottle for rent; enquire within.

1 0