<<Cross-posted because rec.guns moderator is killing pro-anon posts>> ||To: gun-control@cs.umd.edu -=> Quoting Stan Young to All <=- SY> This is a public forum. It is a place for standing up and being SY> counted. If you haven't posted here before, and you don't wish to be SY> "known" as someone with interests in this area, don't post - period. Ah, "The John Wayne Syndrome" again! Re-check my posts for my comments. In any case, you are imposing your value judgment on someone else's purely personal decision, which of course is out of line. In any case, how do you know a "real" account is indeed "real"? You don't, and you can't. SY> Those who think that an "anonymous" posting site provides any SY> protection at all are, sadly, seriously in error. Note that your name SY> is still available "before" the post gets to the "anonymous" site - SY> and anyone sufficiently motivated to collect the data will be able to SY> trace it back to you. Completely and totally untrue! My "technical ignorance" point again... Before embarrassing yourself by making such statements, you should educate yourself about current anon remailer tech. What you say is only true for the first-generation trivial remailers such as Penet's, used for trivial anonymity. The current chained, encrypted Cypherpunks remailers are, as far as can be determined, absolutely unbreakable except _possibly_ (and only theoretically) by a high intensity, highly expensive attack by the NSA or by an internal physical security breach. These are complicated and sophisticated programs. If you think you can defeat them, there are lots of folks who would love for you to try. There is no evidence that anyone has, and there have been notable cases where Law Enforcement has tried to break the tech and failed (Followup to cypherpunks@toad.com). SY> If you have secrets you want to keep, the best way to do it is to keep SY> your mouth shut, your profile low, and your fingers off the keyboard. Frankly, if anyone should shut up, it'd be the people who don't know what they're talking about...but that would cut down the traffic in rec.guns to about six posts a day, I suppose. |%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%| | <john.nieder@tigerteam.org> * CP2A * PGP Key # E27937 on all servers | |-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=| |"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude | | better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in | | peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the | | hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may | |posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams, 1776| |=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-| |BOYCOTT: Pepsico <KFC - Taco Bell - Frito-Lay - Pepsi-Cola> & Gillette| |%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%| <Later in the day, I received a message from "Magnum" and replied:> -=> Quoting Magnum@cs.umd.edu to John Nieder <=- Ma> You are responding to Stan Young, and so I'm forwarding your post to Ma> him since I have chosen to reject your post for the whole group. You also, I note, have not been passing on numerous other dissenting messages of which I have received Cc:s. This is an excellent way to engineer the illusion of common consent, however dishonestly. I congratulate you. Unfortunately, you do not have control of the other lists and newsgroups on which I plan to discuss this issue and your personal handling of it. Ma> The issue has been aired and closed, however, and Ma> therefore I see no basis for sending your contempt *for* the group *to* Ma> the group. I think we all pretty much figured this out how you feel Ma> from the last posts anyway. How do you expect me to feel? No one - including you - has answered a single goddam point I made, refuted a claim, or otherwise gave anything faintly resembling an intelligent response. All I have received is a bunch of Cc:s supporting my position, which do not show up on the group, and a few snitty and illiterate pokes from folks who don't like to have their ignorance and prejudice pointed out, and who can't deal with the actual issues. If I'm wrong on this position, show me _why_, don't play chickenshit games with incoming posts to fake a consensus and pretend like I never said anything serious to begin with. That's just contemptable, especially coming from someone so heavily invested in "open" discussion. "Sunlight" or something, wasn't it? Think about it. In the meantime check the following post. The original respondent had the intellectual integrity to admit that my points were valid, but was shook up because I had dared rock the boat by being angry: ======================================================================= Msg#: 2 Pvt Date: 13 May 94 00:11:15 From: John Nieder To: Rt@hpbs2852.boi.hp.com Subj: Re: [ANON]: Yes or Goodby -=> Quoting Rt@hpbs2852.boi.hp.com to John Nieder <=- Rt> Anyway, when I'm as angry about something as you obviously were Rt> when you wrote this, I have difficulty realizing how I sound. I'm just Rt> letting you know the taste your post left in other people's mouths, in Rt> case you were interested. The only things that matter are the points I made. If you can refute them - if what I asserted is inaccurate - you have a case, otherwise save the bandwidth, no offense intended. I meant for the post to sound exactly the way it did. I edited it three times and a fourth for cross-posting. My netmail on this is running about 85% toward enthusiastic agreement, by the way. Of the detractors posting the remaining, dissenting notes, you are the _only_ one who could post two consecutive grammatical sentences. NONE, however, disputed a single point I made in my post. Not _one_, thus nicely proving my hypothesis about anti-anon posters being more interested in personality and conflict than the issues they are obviously unequipped to discuss. Let's face it, there are some prime idiots on these lists and newsgroups who exhibit exactly the same irrational, uninformed, buttheaded bigotry in their attitudes toward the privacy movement (and God knows what else) that Diane Feinstein shows toward guns. These days I'm getting fed up with being steamrollered by small people with little piss-pots of authority who don't know what the hell they're talking about. I'm sick of being expected to _like it_ and respond politely as though I'm dealing with decent, thinking human beings. I've _had_ it, Bro. My take is that if the shoe fits, they can fucking well wear it. JN ... Truth exists independently of ideological imperatives.