On 7/6/16 12:51 PM, juan wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 12:27:03 -0700
"Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net> wrote:


On 6/30/16 1:10 PM, juan wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 12:33:22 -0700
"Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net> wrote:



 In the unlikely
event that we elect Trump, 

	He is unlikely to be elected because he's marginally better
	than that murderours cunt, your boss hitlery.

Not sure why a sexist slur makes any difference.

	"sexist"? The fuck are you taling about? Oh wait. I guess that
	pandering to feminazi cunts is your way to try to get laid?
	Sad.

Perhaps you were using the UK definition of 'cunt', although that usage is, I think, often as an endearment, much like 'bastard' or 'dude' in the US.  In some locales, it's almost always used in a sexist sense.  Anyway, your stooping to ad hominem attacks means you've already lost the argument.

I was on BBSs in 1982, Compuserve in 1984, UUCP/Usenet in 1987 (a couple hops from uvax), running a server on the Internet continuously since 1992, setting up a couple ISPs including a satellite link in the early 90's, on AOL in 1995 (I wrote BuddyList for AOL.), and various other things.  Calling me names on the Internet is not going to phase me.


      

        
 Murderous?  Are all
US leaders, in general, murderous 


      

      
	
	Of course.

    

    

    Well, no wonder.  So, if you were President of the US, what would
    you do differently?  How would that work better?

    

    

      
	Now tell me Stephen, what does an establishment bot like you do
	in an allegedly crypto ANARCHIST mailing list?

    

    

    Define 'anarchist' and 'crypto-anarchist', think a little, and you
    may find some answers.

    

    Let's go with the Wikipedia definition:

    

      
      Crypto-anarchists employ cryptographicsoftware to evade prosecution and
        harassment while sending and receiving information over computer networks, in an effort to protect their privacy and political freedom.

    

    From that, you can derive a number of reasons to support and/or be
    aware of and/or use the techniques from cypherpunks.  For instance,
    you could look at the US as being largely based on
    free-speech-anarchism, as per the First Amendment.  Based on that,
    and perhaps borrowing from the Second, Fourth Amendments and other
    sources, you could easily justify an effort like cypherpunks.  In
    the 90's, Cypherpunks, individually and as a whole, were super
    important to avoid things going the wrong way in the US.  It was
    important for clear-headed arguments to be made, legal and other
    challenges mounted in just the right way, and education and code
    spread widely and evolved quickly.  Paranoid babble would not have
    helped, and is still not helping.

    

    Understanding the "establishment" doesn't mean being "their" bot. 
    Your lack of understanding and/or irrational distrust doesn't make
    you an anarchist; it shows your ignorance.

    

    "You don't know your own argument unless you know your opponent's."
    - anon (I think.)  You can't even understand who your opponent is
    unless you understand all sides as much as possible.

    

    

      
	I can counter your sick garbage/propaganda, but I'm
	curious why you post it here...?


    

    

    Quite a weak and lazy response; you obviously have nothing but
    bluster.  If you can't back up your statements with evidence, you
    aren't really saying anything useful.  Plonk.

    

    I think I've probably been "here" much longer than you have.  I was
    learning and participating since fairly early, and continuously for
    quite a few years.  For instance:

    

    http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1995/02/msg00141.html

    

    sdw