Perry:
This is cypherpunks, a mailing list for people interested in cryptography and its social implications. This is not "Conspiracy Buffs Digest: All The Silly Conspiracy Theories You Can Read".
Please take the noise postings elsewhere.
I am very much in agreement. I am not interested in reading this stuff in the cpunks mail list. Here is what I consider to be acceptable ways to send this stuff to the people on cpunks: 1) NOT AT ALL 2) A pointer and explaination. For example: "Hey, there is an article that describes the Foster case, which also includes proof that the NSA [something relevant to cpunks] and it's on alt.kooks.conspiracy posted by John Spook, msg id <msg123.host> 3) A summary of the parts relevant to cpunks. For example: "A recent 50-page NYT book on whitewater mentions that Hubbard used Nautilus to talk over the phone with Ms. Clinton" In the past, method 3 (summarizing) has proven very effective for some newspaper articles on things. Don Note: this is not meant to release me from guilt of having posted off-topic and innane things in the past (and future), but at least I did so with little bandwidth.