Re: Dr. Vulis' social engineering "experiment"
Toto <toto@sk.sympatico.ca wrote:
If what you say is true, then Dr. DV K's efforts are quite possibly the most important issue being addressed in this conference, because behind free speech, lies the most important issue of all--when does it start, and when does it stop.
As a long time lurker (much longer than many of the numerous relatively recent vociferous posters) I *must* speak up. If the dear "Doctor's" posting are indeed a "grand" experiment in newsgroup (or maillist) sociology, then it seems they are akin to experiments in recent history; if the patient dies, so what? There are other lists... While many of you think that the ability of a list to withstand constant spamming is an important issue; the government is busily working to outlaw encryption and privacy, and I fear that much is lost by the side issue of the "how easily can I kill a list". I feel we at a *critical* crossroads in this debate, and one of the more important voices has *very* effectively been silenced.
The military-industrial complex proclaims this necessary for the purposes of state-security, and denies that it is used in order to keep their 'sins' from being exposed. (If you believe this, then please contact me by private email regarding an ocean-front property I have available in Tucson, AZ. If you act quickly, I will throw in a set of the Amazing Ginzu Knives as an added bonus.)
This is very true, but I cannot understand why you think that the attempt to disrupt and destroy this list a necessary step in the task of resisting this governmental effort.
As far as I am concerned, any CypherPunk who believes that the socio/politico issues surrounding cryptography are not important enough to be an integral part of this list is falling into the same type of trap as those who think that they can become good cryptographers without becoming good cryptanalysts.
Again, I can't understand why "killing the messenger" is advancing the issues of privacy and crypto issues. How does the posting of numerous crude anti-Tim May messages promote personal privacy?
"In peacetime, a warlike man sets upon himself." -- Nietzsche "In times of war, a peacelike man sets upon others." Bubba Rom Dos
This seems horribly to describe the current situation. =Bill=
Bill Campbell wrote:
While many of you think that the ability of a list to withstand constant spamming is an important issue; the government is busily working to outlaw encryption and privacy, and I fear that much is lost by the side issue of the "how easily can I kill a list".
The "About Cypherpunks" intro to the list states, "Cypherpunks know how to attack a system and how to defend it." "Cypherpunks love to practice." If I choose to join the "Venemous Snakes" list, I'm not going to complain about getting bit every now and again.
I feel we at a *critical* crossroads in this debate, and one of the more important voices has *very* effectively been silenced.
Dr. Vulis? There was an 'attempt' to silence him, but it hasn't worked, to date.
I cannot understand why you think that the attempt to disrupt and destroy this list a necessary step in the task of resisting this governmental effort.
I haven't seen any evidence of an attempt to destroy this list. I've seen many attempts to manipulate the list's direction, but that is another matter.
Again, I can't understand why "killing the messenger" is advancing the issues of privacy and crypto issues.
There was a crypto-messenger named DataETRetch that 'advanced' their version of crypto on this list, and they left their heads on the chopping block on their way out. If your team can't even make it through the scrimmages, then they don't belong in the game. And if you find yourself suggesting, "Why don't we just play 'touch', instead of 'tackle'.", then you're probably getting too old and tired to play in the major leagues.
How does the posting of numerous crude anti-Tim May messages promote personal privacy?
It doesn't. 'Stopping' the annoyance of these messages promotes personal privacy.
"In peacetime, a warlike man sets upon himself." -- Nietzsche "In times of war, a peacelike man sets upon others." Bubba Rom Dos
This seems horribly to describe the current situation.
No shit, Sherlock. Toto
Bill Campbell wrote:
Toto <toto@sk.sympatico.ca wrote:
Good points all, Bill. Now, just turn the pointed finger around slightly so that (for some of the issues at least) it points towards the providers/managers/moderators, etc. Wouldn't it be a gas if this were part of the Grand Plan, waiting only for the provocation? They can argue that one person's posts have worse content than others (or argue the Spam motive), but really, what's it all about besides control? All of you long-time guys survived the war without the moderator's help, am I right?
As a long time lurker (much longer than many of the numerous relatively recent vociferous posters) I *must* speak up. If the dear "Doctor's" posting are indeed a "grand" experiment in newsgroup (or maillist) sociology, then it seems they are akin to experiments in recent history; if the patient dies, so what? There are other lists... While many of you think that the ability of a list to withstand constant spamming is an important issue; the government is busily working to outlaw encryption and privacy, and I fear that much is lost by the side issue of the "how easily can I kill a list". I feel we at a *critical* crossroads in this debate, and one of the more important voices has *very* effectively been silenced.[snip] This is very true, but I cannot understand why you think that the attempt to disrupt and destroy this list a necessary step in the task of resisting this governmental effort.[mo' snip] Again, I can't understand why "killing the messenger" is advancing the issues of privacy and crypto issues. How does the posting of numerous crude anti-Tim May messages promote personal privacy?
participants (3)
-
Bill Campbell -
Dale Thorn -
Toto