Bryce wrote (whilst on his high horse):

Hm. I think the best we could hope for is along the lines of "The suspect subscribed to the 'Cypherpunks' discussion group on the Internet, but his violent views were rejected by the members of the group."

Not every member of this list rejects his views. I for one do not reject them outright, but will not defend his views publically for fear of embarassing the corporation that I work for. I do not reject Jim Bell's violent views for the simple reason that violence is often required to fight violence. In other words, the best you can hope for is "... but his violent views were rejected by some members of the group."

It is important that the reporter manages to _not_ use the word "member" to indicate that Bell is a "member" of Cypherpunks.

He *is* a member. And why shouldn't he be? Are you suggesting that this group become moderated? (hiss). The whole AP concept is very relevent to the Cypherpunks, whether the majority like it or not.

I think that conversing with Bell, or publically replying to him at all, even to insult him, makes him more of a "member" and makes his pet topic more a part of cypherpunks, both in appearance and in substance. So don't do it. That means you, too, Black Unicorn. At _least_ you can take it to private e-mail in order to prevent the reporters from getting the wrong idea, and in order to spare the rest of us the tedium of deleting the messages.

No platform for lunatics??? If there is one thing that a Cypherpunk should have learned during his time in the group, is that the answer to hate speech (or violent speech, or whatever you wish to call it) is more speech. If your fear is that reporters will get hold of the wrong end of the stick, then perhaps you are correct, but the real problem is the *reporters*, not the attitude of the Cypherpunks. blame them. propose a solution. (how about abolition of all libel laws?)

This is assuming that the statement "his violent views were rejected by the members of the group" is actually true! If there _is_ anyone else here who shares Bell's evil enthusiasms, I strongly encourage you to begin a new list dedicated to that topic.

I disagree with the phrase "evil enthusiasms." Bell is not an evil man. A little crazy perhaps, but not evil. If you bothered to listen to him, you would find that his aim is to create a "better" world, where people (especially politicians) are very much more responsible for their own actions. He suggests that the number of deaths due to AP will be less that the number of deaths due to the current corrupt system. think about it. how many on this group would have another man killed for his views? For his noisy stereo? For a competive advantage in business? I am confident the answer will be zero. On the other hand, I would gladly throw in a few dollars to have certain politicians killed. gladly. and I will be able to sleep at night. I will sleep better knowing that, although I was partly responsible for a mans death, I will have saved countless others (a bit like dropping an a-bomb on Japan). Question for Jim - would you resort to AP to have Bryce popped off? Question for Bryce - would you resort to AP to have Jim popped off?