mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos) writes:

William H. Geiger III writes:

...

Dorthy Denning is a boot-licking fasicist!!!

...

William Reinsch is a lying bastard. Fucking politions!! Fucking goverment!! They all deserve a long rope!!

It is perhaps a point in Dr. Denning's favor that her most vitriolic detractors can spell neither "Dorothy" nor "fascist".

Yes. On the Internet it may not be immediately evident that the other side of the debate is represented by clueless juveniles with whom you simply wouldn't talk in a physical encounter. Trying to explain the need for key escrow to a 15-year-old self-professed "Libertarian" (or indeed trying to explain anything about cryptography to a group that collectively claims that discussions of elliptic curves are "off-topic") is literally throwing pearls before the swine.

I must admit that I am at a loss to understand the heat which Dorothy Denning generates on the Cypherpunks list, which seems to be second only to the heat generated by posting recipes for roast feline in rec.pets.cats.

I've seen other people abused on this mailing list - usually, whoever knows more about cryptography then the regular "lynch mob".

All of the people I know who have met her find her to be a pleasant person, and the occasional Email messages we have exchanged have certainly been positive and friendly. While she tends to view the Four Horsemen of the Infocolypse as a bit more threatening than the typical Cypherpunk, I don't think her views are so extreme as to justify the continuous screams of "crypto toady", "government suckup", and "wicked witch" which seem to pop up in response to her every utterance.

I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Denning in person and I asked her about her views on GAK. Her responses made a lot of sense to me. Most businesses, if they thought about it, would prohibit their employers from having information on company computers encrypted so the owner of the computer can't read them. This is just good business sense.

I would even go so far as to say that this list would be a lot more entertaining if she were contributing to it, and sci.crypt is certainly a less interesting place now than it was in bygone days when she was posting there.

This mailing list suffers from the presence of several mentally disturbed juveniles who a) are clearly ignorant of cryptography (e.g. rant about brute force attacks on OTP); b) are cognizant of their utter ignorance and stupidity; c) are envious of anyone who does know what s/he's talking about. So, they feel compelled to harrass anyone who's smarter / more knowledgeable than they are (sometimes using the anonymous remailers) in an effort to drive all intelligent discussion off their "private mailing list", so ignoramuses like Bradley can sound like "local experts". The continuing verbal abuse of Dr. Denning is no different from the abuse previously heaped on Fred Cohen or David Sternlight or yours truly. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

On Wed, 27 Nov 96 19:57:27 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: Yes. On the Internet it may not be immediately evident that the other side of the debate is represented by clueless juveniles with whom you simply wouldn't talk in a physical encounter. Trying to explain the need for key Or people who act like clueless juveniles on the net, while seeming to be nice, rational adults in real life. I hear you fit that description fairly well (I, of course, can only speak for the online side).

I must admit that I am at a loss to understand the heat which Dorothy Denning generates on the Cypherpunks list, which seems to be second only to the heat generated by posting recipes for roast feline in rec.pets.cats.

I've seen other people abused on this mailing list - usually, whoever knows more about cryptography then the regular "lynch mob". "Knows more" == "rants endlessly about how the letters "Q.E.D." and some nonsense about hot air balloons render a cryptosystem unbreakable." I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Denning in person and I asked her about her views on GAK. Her responses made a lot of sense to me. Most businesses, if they thought about it, would prohibit their employers from having information on company computers encrypted so the owner of the computer can't read them. This is just good business sense. Of course it is. And they can do this, today, without any legislation! I believe the commercial version of PGP (Business Edition?) has support for this. This is, of course, totally unrelated to GAK (unless you consider people to be the property of their government, I suppose). This mailing list suffers from the presence of several mentally disturbed juveniles who a) are clearly ignorant of cryptography (e.g. rant about brute force attacks on OTP); b) are cognizant of their utter ignorance and stupidity; c) are envious of anyone who does know what s/he's talking about. d) rant endlessly about Tim May. e) put "(fart)" or "(spit)" after every other word. f) rant about John Gilmore's alleged sexual preferences. (I seem to recall something about Tsutomu Shimomura "stealing" his girlfriend??) g) continually bring up Paul Bradley's "brute forcing a OTP" post, which was quite clearly a simple misunderstanding. [and h) probably rant about me for a while now. Prove me wrong.] So, they feel compelled to harrass anyone who's smarter / more knowledgeable than they are (sometimes using the anonymous remailers) in Ah! That explains the "Timmy (fart) May" posts! *Now* I get it! The continuing verbal abuse of Dr. Denning is no different from the abuse previously heaped on Fred Cohen or David Sternlight or yours truly. The only "continuing verbal abuse" I've seen on this list is you and those "Freedom Knight" twits abusing Tim May and John Gilmore. -- Paul Foley --- PGPmail preferred PGP key ID 0x1CA3386D available from keyservers fingerprint = 4A 76 83 D8 99 BC ED 33 C5 02 81 C9 BF 7A 91 E8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.

Paul Foley writes:

On Wed, 27 Nov 96 19:57:27 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:

Yes. On the Internet it may not be immediately evident that the other side of the debate is represented by clueless juveniles with whom you simply wouldn't talk in a physical encounter. Trying to explain the need for key

Or people who act like clueless juveniles on the net, while seeming to be nice, rational adults in real life. I hear you fit that description fairly well (I, of course, can only speak for the online side).

That's in the eye of the beholder. I certainly don't have to be polite if I choose to address a cybergang of raving ignorant flamers who oppose free speech and advocate content-based censorship. Is John Gilmore polite to me?

...

I must admit that I am at a loss to understand the heat which Dorothy Denning generates on the Cypherpunks list, which seems to be second only to the heat generated by posting recipes for roast feline in rec.pets.cats.

I've seen other people abused on this mailing list - usually, whoever knows more about cryptography then the regular "lynch mob".

"Knows more" == "rants endlessly about how the letters "Q.E.D." and some nonsense about hot air balloons render a cryptosystem unbreakable."

You're lying. I never said anything like that. Fred Cohen never said anything like that. Dorothy Denning (whose name the cypherpunks can't spell) never said anything like that. On the contrary, Paul Bradley who rants about brute force attacks on OTP, is considered top 'punks' cryptography expert.

I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Denning in person and I asked her about her views on GAK. Her responses made a lot of sense to me. Most businesses, if they thought about it, would prohibit their employers from having information on company computers encrypted so the owner of the computer can't read them. This is just good business sense.

Of course it is. And they can do this, today, without any legislation! I believe the commercial version of PGP (Business Edition?) has support for this.

This is, of course, totally unrelated to GAK (unless you consider people to be the property of their government, I suppose).

This semester I'm teaching an undergraduate course in economics and I find it very challenging to explain, e.g. the Laffer curve to students who have never paid any taxes. Or, some students couldn't understand the difference between different flat-rate pre-paid medical plans vs. pay-as-you-go medical plans. They've never encountered anything like this in their lives and it takes weeks for new concepts to sink in. Indeed, I recall how a few years ago my wife was teaching a calculus course and she told me about an inner-city student who was reasonably bright, but had never left the inner city in her life. She had trouble with word problems involving, e.g., mountains (popular in calculus texts :-) because she had never seen one and couldn't quite understand what it was. When cypherpunk juveniles rant about GAK, they are unable to present any arguments for or against it other than personal attacks and name-calling (like the recent pile of sexual innuendo e-mailed anonymously to Dr.Denning). To me this shows that they're ignorant of the cryptography issues involved, of law enforcement, of corporate data security policy, and are either too young to know or unwilling to learn. Why do you think I don't discuss my work on this mailing list?

This mailing list suffers from the presence of several mentally disturbed juveniles who a) are clearly ignorant of cryptography (e.g. rant about brute force attacks on OTP); b) are cognizant of their utter ignorance and stupidity; c) are envious of anyone who does know what s/he's talking about.

d) rant endlessly about Tim May. e) put "(fart)" or "(spit)" after every other word. f) rant about John Gilmore's alleged sexual preferences. (I seem to recall something about Tsutomu Shimomura "stealing" his girlfriend??)

Huh? I met Tsutomu once, briefly. I'm sure he's capable of stealing people's girlfriends, being rich and good-looking, but I doubt very much that John Gilmore has one. (Not that it's relevant. Cygnus Support's hiring practices are relevant, since they demonstrate what an asshole Gilmore is. I used to respect Gilmore, but not anymore. He's a liar and a content-based censor.)

g) continually bring up Paul Bradley's "brute forcing a OTP" post, which was quite clearly a simple misunderstanding.

[and h) probably rant about me for a while now. Prove me wrong.]

Yeah, let's talk about Paul Bradley. (A U.K. undergraduate who probably doesn't deserve the time we spend talking about him.) Paul flames ceaselessly on the cypherpunks mailing list, refers to Don Wood as "Don Wood (spit)", has sent me numerous threatening e-mails, does not understand what either "brute force" or "OTP" is, and is unwilling to learn. Now, most undergraduates don't know what brute force and/or OTP are, but they can learn and they do learn if they intend to discuss the subject at such length. Paul is a typical ignorant "cypherpunk". He likes to rant about crypto because it's "kewl", but doesn't want to invest the time in learning the meaning of the words he (mis)uses. "Punks" is well-chosen name.

So, they feel compelled to harrass anyone who's smarter / more knowledgeable than they are (sometimes using the anonymous remailers) in

Ah! That explains the "Timmy (fart) May" posts! *Now* I get it!

Tim May is a coward, afraid to sign his name on his own flames. E.g., I've received several hate e-mails via the anonymous remailers saying stuff like "kill all Russian immigrants". Tim May is known to hate immigrants and Jews (advocates the destruction of Israel etc).

The continuing verbal abuse of Dr. Denning is no different from the abuse previously heaped on Fred Cohen or David Sternlight or yours truly.

The only "continuing verbal abuse" I've seen on this list is you and those "Freedom Knight" twits abusing Tim May and John Gilmore.

You're lying again - or you don't consider cypherpunks calling Dr. Denning "clueless bitch" to be verbal abuse? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

In , on 11/28/96 at 10:26 AM, dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) said:

"William H. Geiger III" writes:

...

<sigh> GAK - Government Access to Keys and corporate control of encryption pr keys are two completely different issues. This is just more smoke and mirrors confuse the issue. There are many solutions currently available for a company the encryption of their data including the use of "master keys" to prevent da option available even with PGP). Government mandated infrastructure of GAK is and unwarranted for such purposes.

Surely someone who can't learn to format their text to 80 columns (perhaps because he uses a dead operating system) has no credibility when he speaks of technical things he clearly knows nothing about.

Are you incapable of turning on the word-wrap on your editor??

You remind me of a student in my C++ class who just couldn't understand why a certain C expression evaluated to what it did. We made it simpler and simpler until we had no variables left and this expression (w/o parens) on the board: 1+1*2 The student forcefully argued that it should be equal to 4.

Well seems to be a lack in your teaching ability if you are unable to teach a collage student basic arithmatic order of operations.

...

Cooking With Warp 4.0

Another sign of cluelessness. OS/2 is dead. I've beein using OS/2 since v 1.0, but now I'm moving to NT 4.0. I need to find the device drivers for all my hardware.

hmmm... Ahhh and NT is better??

Choke on your turkey. :-)

hmmm... no responce to the actual issue?? What's wrong Dimitri ? Only capable of your enless rants? <sigh> back to the twit filter you go. -- ----------------------------------------------------------- "William H. Geiger III" -----------------------------------------------------------

William Geiger writes:

Dimitri Vulis writes:

...

Surely someone who can't learn to format their text to 80 columns (perhaps because he uses a dead operating system) has no credibility when he speaks of technical things he clearly knows nothing about.

Are you incapable of turning on the word-wrap on your editor??

You may not get along with Dimitri, but in this case you are clearly in the wrong. If you consult any newbie FAQs for USENET, mailing lists, netiquette, etc. you should notice that lines less than 80 chars long are recommended. People who insist on splurging 120 char. long lines are usually poorly read. It just looks so disgusting as to be near unreadable on the majority of newsreading software. With the volume of this list, and the fact that the cluefull actually do produce < 80 long lines, I'm sure many just don't have the patience to read such stuff. Retorts about how the reader should ajust their software to your non-compliance to the accepted standards is just ridiculous. I've also got a beef with people who produce mime encoded junk. Things where all lines end in `=', and punctuation characters are mime encoded. Yuck! Turn it off! Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0