Ignore Aimee Farr (was RE: Cypherpunk Threat Analysis )
Tim - Behavioral psychologists will tell you that the best way to extinguish an undesirable behavior is to IGNORE it. If Farr's posturings and baitings are truly to be made ineffective, the best course of action amongst the cpunks who care is to killfile the postings and refuse to engage on ANY level. Rising to the bait, debating whether such-and-such a purpose is behind Farr's postings, speculating on Farr's true intent, all this does is spur on the postings, the baiting, the provocation. Just say "no" to responding to ANY of Farr's postings, and I would almost put money that the behavior will extinguish within a week. On Thursday, September 13, 2001, at 08:39 AM, Aimee Farr wrote:
For the sick people in here that like to call for TNA's (target name and address) for judicial officials etc.
-- NLECTC Law Enforcement & Corrections Technology News Summary Thursday, September 13, 2001 -- "Technological Advances in Assessing Threats to Judicial Officials" Sheriff (08/01) Vol. 53, No. 4, P. 34; Calhoun, Frederick S.
The majority of sheriff offices throughout the country assign personnel to handle threats made to judges according to which situations pose the greatest risks. Los Angeles
I wonder why Agent Farr warns about our list "tolerating" bomb discussions, and then posts her own provocateur bomb discussions. I wonder why Agent Farr refers to the "sick people in here" who cite names of LEAs and then makes a point to cite LEA persons by _name_. Agent Farr arrived from _nowhere_ just after the election last year, with no previous detectable online interests, on half a dozen of the most "controversial" mailing lists and discussion groups. She began baiting and provoking, and when that failed, starting her own "Bomb Law Reporter" and attempting to entrap discussion group participants in what she has claimed are "dangerous" activities. She has recently claimed that our failure to support Big Brother-friendly networks makes us equivalent to the WTC actors. The witch hunt began a long time ago, but it has taken on new dimensions recently. Expect to see the real Agent Farr, who is very probably not named "Aimee" in real life, testifying before Congress on his "undercover" operations to shut down the Cypherpunks, PGP, and Extropians lists. --Tim May
Mr. Ziplip wrote:
Tim -
Behavioral psychologists will tell you that the best way to extinguish an undesirable behavior is to IGNORE it.
If Farr's posturings and baitings are truly to be made ineffective, the best course of action amongst the cpunks who care is to killfile the postings and refuse to engage on ANY level.
My post was not "bait." The reason we have anything left of the amendments so frequently talked about in here is due to the independence of the judiciary. While you can question aforesaid independence, threatening the judiciary is beyond the pale. There are some posts in here that give me 'pause for psycholinguistic analysis.' As such, I worry that they could be misconstrued (Type 5...Type 6, compulsive or possible syndicate bombers even...) by some hypersensitive, uneducated people not intimately familiar with the history and quirks of this list -- in what has become a hypersensitive environment. Bell's "Assassination Politics" put cypherpunks on some protective intelligence agendas. It would not be implausible to assume you were being monitored to see if you "run" with the seeded assassination memes, if only for analytical purposes. These matters are taken seriously by those charged with the care of protected persons. (Contrary to what some here would have you believe, subtlety can get you a much higher threat-rating than overtly threatening correspondence.)
Rising to the bait, debating whether such-and-such a purpose is behind Farr's postings, speculating on Farr's true intent, all this does is spur on the postings, the baiting, the provocation. Just say "no" to responding to ANY of Farr's postings, and I would almost put money that the behavior will extinguish within a week.
Baiting? Provocation? No, a caveat. Do not tolerate behavior of that nature. It subjects you all to scrutiny and mischaracterization. What about Mr. K-S that hides behind his hushmail jacket and asks for names and addresses.....why doesn't somebody cuss him out? ~Aimee
-- On 13 Sep 2001, at 20:26, Aimee Farr wrote:
My post was not "bait." The reason we have anything left of the amendments so frequently talked about in here is due to the independence of the judiciary. While you can question aforesaid independence, threatening the judiciary is beyond the pale.
I have not seen any threats on this list to judges except your own. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG mBbFybVtN//9TWHKI38Ci+qZnDro4s/kORfW+Jd1 4JnAeMYe4DBpTW9S8+cI5MhVV/UPBhgjv1qcQgLYS
I have never threatened a judicial official, or anybody else. I have reason to doubt my character in this regard could be placed into question. ~Aimee
-----Original Message----- From: owner-cypherpunks@lne.com [mailto:owner-cypherpunks@lne.com]On Behalf Of jamesd@echeque.com Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 11:19 AM To: citizenQ; Aimee Farr Cc: cypherpunks@lne.com Subject: Re: A Brevital Moment (was..Ignore Aimee Farr)
-- On 13 Sep 2001, at 20:26, Aimee Farr wrote:
My post was not "bait." The reason we have anything left of the amendments so frequently talked about in here is due to the independence of the judiciary. While you can question aforesaid independence, threatening the judiciary is beyond the pale.
I have not seen any threats on this list to judges except your own.
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG mBbFybVtN//9TWHKI38Ci+qZnDro4s/kORfW+Jd1 4JnAeMYe4DBpTW9S8+cI5MhVV/UPBhgjv1qcQgLYS
participants (3)
-
Aimee Farr -
citizenQ -
jamesd＠echeque.com