Hallam-Baker wrote:

Timothy C. May wrote:

...

Political advocacy is one thing, but making threats, even veiled ones, is another matter.

Absolutely, that is why I was keen for people to oppose Bell's views.

Horseshit. Anybody here ever hear of the Boston Tea Party? How about the American Revolution? War of Independece? French Revolution? You know, people who said "Fuck this shit, I've had enough." People who acted in concert to fight injustice and oppression. Perhaps Phill and Tim might want to take afternoon tea together and watch the tanks roll by, since Hitler only wants Austria... Poland...France...Britain........... I haven't noticed anyone on the list suggesting that they are going to wait to buy a gun until they hear a burglar/murderer coming through the window. If we are going to castigate someone for suggesting ways to take action against oppressive taxation, then perhaps we should call the Queen of England, tell her we're sorry for our forefather's error in judgement, and that we'll start flying the Union Jack again.

If his ramblings had gone unchallenged he would now be being presented as a representative of Cypherpunk/ pro-crypto views.

Excuse me? Only people whose views you personally approve of should be presented as a representative of cypherpunk views? I hate to burst your bubble, Phill, but everyone on the list is a representative of cypherpunk views and people outside the have a right to pick and choose the various viewpoints as they see fit.

some of my relatives are in government and have had well publicised assasination attempts against them.

So did Hitler and Mussolini.

I think that Bell's on-list comments may well have been protected speech but I'm not sure about his off list comments.

Then why bring it up? To cast vague aspersions?

I think that Bell's posts were entirely different from Tim's or for that matter almost every other person on the list. Tim demonstrated that a covert information sales organisation was possible with Blacknet but he never advocated setting it up.

So you're calling Tim a blowhard who likes to play at anarchy but lacks the balls to propose anything concrete? * {* DisinfoTranslation Technique (c) Greg Broiles}

Indeed part of the point was the ethical responsibilities. Bell on the other hand was likely to respond to any post with his AP piece. I have throughout considered these to be incitement to murder.

Your own propensity for murderous thoughts in no way reflects on other individual's interpretations of Jim Bell's intentions. Certainly Jim Bell tended to answer questions such as, "What day is it?" with a speech on AP, but what do hashcash programmers discuss? Hashcash. What does anyone talk about? The things they have an active interest in? So what's your point?

It seems quite likely that Bell may have made a statement to an IRS official that in the context of his authoring the AP piece may have constituted a threat.

It seems quite likely that Hallam-Baker is inventing facts which don't exist because he is being paid to do so in order to do a character assassination on Jim Bell. Anyone else want to jump in with off-the-wall claims about what is "likely" and what is not? It seems to me that many list members have their heads further up their ass than the Feds, since they don't even view Bell's threats serious enough to even arrest him. They are on a simple fishing expedition to try to find a cause to harrass him into shutting the fuck up. A *true fact* (rather than vague bullshit about what is "likely") is that John Perry's remailer *was* used to send direct threats to a government official. So, Tim and Phill, which one of you wants to step up to the plate and be the first one to attempt to ostracize him so that his views about the need for anonymous communications will not be taken as representative of the cypherpunks views? Or is Perry's implementation of a system that can be abused to be allowed while Bell's theoretical design of a system to fight oppression is not to be allowed? Does the government wait until the enemies missles are launched to start preparing plans for defence and counter-attack? It is outright riduclous to suggest that individuals and groups should act otherwise, and contrary to their own self-interest. Government and corporate entities are regularly castigated on the cypherpunks list as thugs who must be dealt with in one manner or another. Various levels of action are suggested in relation to the severity of the infringement on our interests. Jim Bell's pet project was to work on a solution for problems which reached the point of requiring the ultimate action--total removal of the threat. Each cypherpunk had his or her own views of what constituted a problem of that magnitude. To suggest that any cypherpunk should not be allowed to express his or her opinion in regard to who his solution might apply to, and why, is not much different than saying that none of our discussions should address specific issues, only generalities. This is akin to saying that we cannot mention older people, or sick people, when discussing euthanasia. Excuse me, but someone is shooting at me. I need to go buy a gun... TruthMonger ************************************************************************ This Anonymous email has been relayed by http://www.MyEmail.net/ MyEmail.Net is a free anonymous mailing service. No records indicating the identity of person(s) who originated this message are retrieved electronically, or as a requirement to submit. Your email address can be blocked to prevent further contact from this service, please refer to the URL above for instructions on how to do so. ************************************************************************