I think you better check the IDs a little better next time. That interview was with someone from the religious hierarchy (or someplace significantly lower) ((it is so hard to tell them apart these days)) not Jesus. Time is just about ripe to drive the moneychangers from the temple again. After all, you wouldn't like it if DDWD were to put out hisparty line spoutings under TruthMonger would you? In much the same way, I am sure that Jesus does not care for the atrocities that have been and will be done in his. Paul H. Merrill

You know, you are just about the biggest idiot I have ever had the displeasure of reading. For one, the largest religion in the US right now *is* in fact judeo-christian. The largest is Roman Catholic with Pentacostal Protestant following right behind. Next, this country was founded on christian beliefs, or have you failed to read the words of the constitution of the US. Considering the apparent ignorance you have displayed thus far about the makeup of the US, I would venture to say that you probably have not read it. Next, you attack christians for trying to control the content made available on the internet. At least the site ratings plan is better than alot of other plans I have seen. Besides, Oh Godlike TruthMonger, where is *your* surefire plan to halt the spread of trash that *most* humans would want out of of the reach of their children? I have not seen you *once* offer a straightforward clear cut plan to efficiently handle *any* issue placed for discussion on this listserv. I have seen you do nothing but slam, belittle, and degrade others and their beliefs and ideas. You do this under the unimpressive tag of "TruthMonger". If anything, you are anything but a TruthMonger. When you can come up with a plan that even *remotely* seems like a logically thought out, planned, and intelligent proposal on how to handle the issues presented everyday on the internet that affect the computing industry balanced with a concern for the children, then I will listen. (And yes, I do agree that the parents of the children have an obligation to monitor the content they are exposed to. It's called responsible parenting which unfortunately is not a well practiced ideology. And to take the wind out of your sales, I have 2 children and as a parent I limit them to what is appropriate to their ages.) Until such time as you can fulfill the obligations to us, the adult computing population, and our offspring, the children (just in case your fuddled mind does not know what they are), I suggest you rest those busy little fingers of yours and listen to the underlying theme of the issues before us. Until then, HateMonger, I have one suggestion for you..... Shut Up!

:: Anon-To: cypherpunks@toad.com David D.W. Downey wrote:

You know, you are just about the biggest idiot I have ever had the displeasure of reading.

To tell the truth, I'm really embarassed. It's not bad enough that the TruthMailer was hit by lightning and deleted my references to Tim C. May's Vernacular Translation of the Bible (in a shoddy attempt to throw the emnity caused by my post in his direction), but I have sunk to such a low level of reputation capital that I am being looked down on by someone whose cocaine habit caused him to do such evil things that he changed his name from Morton Jr. to David D.W. I won't even try to pretend that I can answer your objections to my post, since I am just a "drunken voice, barfing in the wilderness." However, there is one who will come "after" me (hopefully, not with a gun), who I am merely "preparing the way" for. He also came "before" me (which you can verify by checking the archives). He is the one who turned the CypherPunks away from the electronically graven image of PGP and taught us to be paranoid in spirit. He taught us that, although we are Phil's chosen people, we must wander in the algorithmic desert for 40 bytes before we enter the Private Land. He was accused by the ASCII-art priests. He was crucified on the cross of censorship, and was deleted, but he arose after three weeks of posts by "something called a Toto" to redeem the list members from the sins they committed in calling for censorship and for the death of the list. He forgives those of us on the list who manage to dodge his eternal rapid-fire, even though he makes fun of us by saying, "My father's house has many Mansons...and too many fucking Mongers." After his list res-erection, his disciples' posts have spread his words far and wide, in a new, distributed list known as "The New Testicle." {"In the beginning, was the Turd..." "Beware of politicians fucking people in sheeple's clothing..." "The Revelation of Timothy C. May, which Zimmerman gave unto him, to show unto the newbies things which must shortly come to pass after introduction of the Clipper chip..." } Since lightning never strikes twice in the same place, I will repost the message as "The _Really_ Big Lie," with a self-rating of FUD. If you hated the remailed sequel, you will despise the original. Jesus H. Fucking ChristMonger

Paul H. Merrill wrote: judeo-christian isn't a religion. Christian is.

Judeo- Christian is a subsect of Christianity in it's generic form. (Both my parents are ministers, and this has been drilled into my head.)

I have read the Constitution and the history behind it. >The US was founded by people trying to escape religious >persecution and/or trying to get rich. In case you can't >figure it out, forcing your views down my throat IS >religious persecution -- exactly the same sort that sent the Pilgrims off on the Mayflower.

1) I am not forcing my beliefs down *anyone's* throat. I do not seek to control but to inform. As to the constitution, I served 8 years in the military so I have a pretty good idea of what it does and does not mean. I do not advocate internet control to the point of demanding that site rankings or any such become mandatory. I do however agree that if we can not police ourselves then this should be a warning that others may do it for us. When the Protestants (originally the Quakers), came here, you are correct in why they did come here, yet they also agreed among themselves to police their actions themselves. This is something we are failing to do. We are allowing stuff that children need not to see at certain ages to proliferate all in the name of "If we don't allow this freedom of expression to take place, it sends a signal that *all* freedoms are up for grabs." That is simply not true. What is being proposed is that a little common decency be exerted. After all, these are children we are talking about. They do not have the capacities that we do to process all information relating to certain issues. We have experiences on our side that children do not, just through sheer lack on their part of numbers of years on this planet. I mean are you really suggesting that a child has the cognative abilities, at say the age of 6, to understand and make an informed opinion about sex with an older person? I hope not! I mean, let's be realistic here. We have knowledge gained thru living that children do not. I am in no way suggesting that we blindly stuff all things remotely offensive off the net. I am saying let us be responsible enough to give this information to our children in doses they can handle. And yes, I will be the judge of what I feel my children can handle. What is so wrong with adults putting a statement on their sites that say, Hey parents, there *may* be info here that you might want to be aware of for the kids' sakes.?

That statement is somewhat similar to saying that if you >don't like your chains you are free to suggest the stocks >or perhaps rope.

No, what I am saying is that if he doesn't like what has been proposed to suggest an alternative in an adult fashion. I don't see how slamming and belittling helps discussions.

As long as the scum that gravitates toward LEAs and the >Government continue to do so it is relatively stupid to >express (or defend) views outside the accepted norm in an >open fashion. (I guess that makes me sorta stupid, huh?)

Not true. I will never agree with what our government proposes. In fact I have an entire website dedicated to going *against* what the current government proposes. I do not believe in the taking away of rights or the forcing of a country's people to *have* to do half of what the American government proposes. What I do suggest is that we, as a community, need to look to ways that we can balance these issues out in a manner that is agreeable to all involved. Inflammatory attacks, degradation of someone based on cultural or religious beliefs has no place in the discussions. The only reason I flamed at TruthMonger is because I have only seen postings from that person that violates that very critical issue. Everyone has the right to their opionions right, wrong or otherwise. I just got sick of hearing him flame everyone with a contrary view. And he seems to do this under the suggested banner of truth. That I do not agree with. I don't condemn him for his views. They are just as important as mine. I condemn his actions in slamming others for not agreeing with *him*!

I have two of my own and I don't see how "protecting" them >in the ways that you seem to like would do anything other >than warp their worldview to such a level that they will be >esay prey for whatever scum they run into in the meatworld.

There is a difference between warping their views and ensuring that they are mentally able to engage themselves in these issues. The issues that befall each of us require an ability to see deeper into the causes, actions and reactions of those with whom we interact. We have many things, as adults, that we can bring to the tables of rationality and discussion due to the fact that we learned through prior experiences. Each and every one of us have sought guidance on any myriad of issues. We are leaving a confusing mess for the next generation. I am just saying that we may need to band together to give all of us some sort of cue card as to what issues may be faced at various stops along the way as we ride the information highway.

I don't know about TruthMonger but I did listen to the >underlying theme of the issues before us and I found that >it was actually scum-suckers and other bottom feeders >trying their damnedest to steal my freedom. That's why I'm >typing here and now.

I will grant that there are some out there that advocate the taking away of rights. I am not one of them. I have bullet holes in me because I am willing to put my life on the line for freedom and rights. I don't agree with alot of what hardliners have to say. But they also have a say in this. I will defend my rights and the rights and freedoms of others with my last breath if need be. All I am saying is that there is a constructive way to do things. Let's do it that way. I am no stranger to being a politician's trump card to be played when all else fails to get folks to listen at the talk tables. That is the very nature of soldiering. Yet, I also am not afraid to turn what I learned from them against them if they should so force that issue. In short, yes, I will use violence if *all* else fails to get them to listen to reason. But that is after exhausting all other avenues of approach. The reason I slammed "TruthMonger", is because I have yet to hear anything from him other than pure rhetoric and inflamation. I am willing to listen to what he has to say. Provided that he at least has some meat to his words, not libel and slander. These solve nothing, and contribute even less.

The hatemonger that I see in this interchange is not >TruthMonger and it's not me -- Let's see, I guess that >leaves . . .

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If you feel that I am a HateMonger, you are entitled to that opinion. I am entitled to my opinion that TruthMonger is anything but a TruthMonger, but is a HateMonger. I will defend both your and mine opinions. I believe in the ability to agree to disagree. I agree. I may have been hotheaded and gone too far in my last email. For that I will apologize, both to members of this list, as well as TruthMonger. I will not apologize for my opinion of him.

At 12:53 AM -0700 8/9/97, David D.W. Downey wrote:

...

Paul H. Merrill wrote: judeo-christian isn't a religion. Christian is.

Judeo- Christian is a subsect of Christianity in it's generic form. (Both my parents are ministers, and this has been drilled into my head.)

Not a _sub_sect, or subset, but a _super_set. Unless JC had a time machine, Judaism predates Xtianity. In any case, the convention is that "Judeo-Christianity" is the general tradition connected with the Old Testament, the Ten Commandments, the pre-Xtian prophets, and so on. If your parents really drilled this "sub-sect" business into your head, maybe you ought to ask them to lighten up on the drill, or use a different bit, or something. --Tim May There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

At 06:26 PM 8/8/97 -0400, David D.W. Downey wrote while wearing a big "Kick Me!" sign:

You know, you are just about the biggest idiot I have ever had the displeasure of reading.

You are new here, huh?

For one, the largest religion in the US right now *is* in fact judeo-christian.

Sorry, "Jews for Jesus" is not quite that big. They are about the only faith that quite fits that label. (Unless you count the all-inclusive Bahai or the ALL-IN-ONE faith of Dr. Bronner.) Oh, you mean Christian... Trying to lump all Christian belief together (along with Judaism) is like trying to lump all governments together and claim they have the same laws.

The largest is Roman Catholic

Which some Christian sects argue is not Christian. (For an extreme view of this, read the tract "The Death Cookie" published by Jack T. Chick. It can be obtained from http://www.jackchick.com/ .)

with Pentacostal Protestant following right behind.

With big pointy knives... The biggest growth in the Pentecostal church was during the Reagan administration, when they emptied the mental hospitals. Didn't your mother ever tell you that just because all your friends are speaking in tongues, it doesn't make it any less silly? Just because lots of people believe a stupid thing, it does not make it any less stupid.

Next, this country was founded on christian beliefs, or have you failed to read the words of the constitution of the US.

Sounds like you have been prowling Christian book stores again. Maybe you should read the writings of the Founding Fathers and not just the books your church has authorized for you. A few suggestions: -- The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine <http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/part1 .html> This book should be required reading for all Christians. A expose of the difference between what the church tells you and what the Bible actually says. (For a more condensed version take a look at: <http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_jefferson/virginia_act.ht ml>.) -- The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom by Thomas Jefferson <http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_jefferson/virginia_act.ht ml> This law was the basis of the separation of church and state in the constitution. Read this and see if they were basing the country on your faith. There are many others... The founders of this country were of many different belief systems. Many of them were hated and reviled by the clerics of their day. Of course, evangelical Christians gloss over these facts in an effort to continue their ~2,000 years of enslavement of the minds of men.

Considering the apparent ignorance you have displayed thus far about the makeup of the US, I would venture to say that you probably have not read it.

I am willing to bet that you have not either... (Except for the excerpts quoted in the books pushing the idea to the willing flock, written by the Christians who wish to perpetuate the fraud.) What in the Constitution makes you think that it was the Christian God that was being mentioned and not the God of Deists?

Next, you attack christians for trying to control the content made available on the internet.

At last! The plan exposed! Damn right he attacks you! But Christians get pretty touchy when faced with criticism of their agenda. (Or mentioning that their beliefs are NOT the word of God, of exposing the flaws in Christianity, or having any view that conflicts with the "One True God(tm)".)

At least the site ratings plan is better than alot of other plans I have seen.

In other words, you can claim it is voluntary and make it look like you are giving people a choice as you push your morality down their throats. The Bible Beaters try to impose their views of what is right and wrong, but get pretty offended and huffy when others try and do the same thing. (Like when they push School Prayer, but freak out when the pagans want the same options.) How would you react if the ratings groups were stacked with Athiests, Wiccans, Tantrics, and Jainists? Would you be willing to accept their judgements on the acceptability of your beliefs and speech? I didn't think so.

Besides, Oh Godlike TruthMonger, where is *your* surefire plan to halt the spread of trash that *most* humans would want out of of the reach of their children?

*Most* humans want their children to grow up ignorant about sex and the outside world? What about texts that are used as justification to commit mass murder and enslavement? How are you going to rate those? (Books that teach that it is right and proper to go off and kill your neighbors because they do not believe in your God and happen to be on land your deity covets.) Oh wait... That is the current dominant religion. Can't censor that! Children need to be challenged by ideas that are different from their own. If they are not, then they grow up with ideas that they cannot intellectually defend. They grow up intelecually squishy. I have known far too many Christians who never read anything that challenges their basic belief structure. Nothing that could dare shake their faith in God and the Bible. In their isolation, they are taught to believe ideas that have no rational defense. (Like Biblical inerrancy and Creationism.) When challenged, these outcasts from reason have to rely on the "moral authority" of their unseen God or other appeals to authority to try and defend their irrational beliefs. If the rules your faith proposes were enforced impartially, your "holy book" would be amongst the burned and censored.

I have not seen you *once* offer a straightforward clear cut plan to efficiently handle *any* issue placed for discussion on this listserv. I have seen you do nothing but slam, belittle, and degrade others and their beliefs and ideas. You do this under the unimpressive tag of "TruthMonger".

But since "TruthMonger" is an anonymous identity and a nym for someone else, you have no idea that this is true. (Actually it is not. TruthMonger has made a number of suggestions, but they conflict with your worldview.) But I forgot... You believe in Jesus. (The original urban legend...) You have infallible insight into the way things should be. Some to think of it, I have not seen you post any suggestions at all. Just this weeny little screed when your belief structure is threatened.

If anything, you are anything but a TruthMonger. When you can come up with a plan that even *remotely* seems like a logically thought out, planned, and intelligent proposal on how to handle the issues presented everyday on the internet that affect the computing industry balanced with a concern for the children, then I will listen. (And yes, I do agree that the parents of the children have an obligation to monitor the content they are exposed to. It's called responsible parenting which unfortunately is not a well practiced ideology.

"When you can come up with a way to censor the net, then I will believe you." "When you come to accept my priorities and my belief system, then I will listen." "When you come up with a plan that meets MY goals, then we'll talk." Of course "concern for the children" is just another way of saying "eliminating content that offends the parents". If you don't want your children exposed to "information that might harm them", then don't let them on the net. The net was never designed or meant to be a "family friendly" environment. It was meant as a way for ADULTS to exchange information. Of course, your kind would like to reduce the intellectual and emotional content of the net to that of a mythical twelve year old... Nothing to offend or challenge your beliefs... (So you can keep your kids in the same mental gulag that you have imposed on your own minds.) Maybe you need to ask yourself *WHY* this material offends you so much? "Protecting children" is the first refuge of the censor.

And to take the wind out of your sales, I have 2 children and as a parent I limit them to what is appropriate to their ages.)

I guess there is a seeker born every minute... Or at least, what you perceive that to be... I find it sad that you have reproduced at all. Hopefully your children will learn to seek information not filtered through the eyes of the bible-believer.

Until such time as you can fulfill the obligations to us, the adult computing population, and our offspring, the children (just in case your fuddled mind does not know what they are), I suggest you rest those busy little fingers of yours and listen to the underlying theme of the issues before us.

What obligation is that? I have no obligation to you and I SERIOUSLY doubt if you represent the "computing public". (Or at least, I hope not, though that might explain COBOL...) I think you need to reread what you wrote there. We have no obligation to you or your "God". Our tongues shall not praise, nor shall we kneel. We shall oppose your attempted dominion over the minds and bodies of men. We will not bend over for the rod and staff of Jesus. We shall will paragraphs.

Until then, HateMonger, I have one suggestion for you..... Shut Up!

Or what? Will Daddy spank? I think you need to get a better connection to a clue server. Or in the words of Crow T. Robot: "Bite me!" --- | "That'll make it hot for them!" - Guy Grand | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano@teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.ctrl-alt-del.com/~alan/ |alan@ctrl-alt-del.com|

You know you have made alot of assumptions about me that are neither warranted nor given basis for existing from my posting. You are just as guilty as I am on assumptions. So before *you* get all high and mighty, figure out first if that is *actually* who I am. Don't use me as a scapegoat that you can use to expound *your* particular beliefs about, just as you take offense at some of the assumptions I made regarding TruthMonger. I do not advocate anything but my own personal thoughts on matters. Neither do I walk *any* party line. (In fact I am registered as independant so that I am forced to be impartial on issues as I am then not stuck with any one parties beliefs. This little flare of temper on my part though does show me one thing at least. There are *many* here that do just the same type of lumping as they accuse me of. Hmm, I forgot. Everyone is perfect, therefore this post is not real and neither are you as in a perfect world there would be no need for me to have this discussion. In that case, I bid you an unreal goodnight.