You know, the more I read posts by Mr. Donald, the more I believe that he is quite possibly the most apt troll I have ever encountered. It is quite apparent from reading his responses that he is obviously an exceptionally intelligent (academically anyway) individual. I find it hard to believe that such intelligence could reside in a person with such critically flawed core beliefs. I have a hunch that Mr. Donald is instead playing the role of an elaborate "devil's advocate", furiously defending his stance against retaliations by our fellow Cypherpunks. Tyler Durden mentioned this hypothesis many emails ago, and I believe him to be accurate, especially since Mr. Donald never responded to the charge. None-the-less, this has been one of the more inteteresting (and infuriating) threads in recent memory of Cypherpunks. I'm glad we're going through it with such vigor. -Adam On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:39:05 -0700, "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> said:
-- Thomas Shaddack:
It isn't a problem for you until it happens to you. Who knows when being interested in anon e-cash will become a ground to blacklist *you*.
James A. Donald:
I know when it will happen. It will happen when people interested in anon ecash go on suicide missions. :-)
Bill Stewart
More likely, when anon ecash money-launderers start being accused of funding terrorist activities.
When e-currency handlers (cambists) are accused of money laundering terrorist's money, the feds steal the money, but they do not obstruct them from travelling, or, surprisingly, even from doing business - well, perhaps not so surprisingly, for if they stopped them from doing business there would be nothing to steal.
When the state uses repressive measures against those that seek to murder us, there is still a large gap between that and using repressive measures against everyone.
We are not terrorists, we don't look like terrorists, we don't sound like terrorists. Indeed, the more visible real terrorists are, the less even Tim McViegh looks like a terrorist and the more he looks like a patriot.
When people are under attack they are going to lash out, to kill and destroy. Lashing out an external enemy, real or imaginary, is a healthy substitute for lashing out at internal enemies. We do not have a choice of peace, merely a choice between war against external or internal enemies. Clearly, war against external enemies is less dangerous to freedom.
War is dangerous to freedom, but we do not have a choice of peace. The question is where the war is to be fought - in America, or elsewhere. War within America will surely destroy freedom.
What we need to fear is those that talk about the home front and internal security, those who claim that Christians are as big a threat as Muslims - or that black Muslims are as big a threat as Middle Eastern Muslims.
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG cGrCJvmIhJnYLWO2RB3qmnqijcHlOOsA7iklRoZD 4Ar75eLN10XbfJw/mqPpGQeUW0SzMlz4CLrpHIeEe