Aaaand, there you have it :) SDW aka Weapons of Sanity Destruction, has made his decision - protect the id (sdw) at all costs. I was contemplating this last night, and dominoes obviously presented themselves - burn the addy, or soldier on. a) Burn the addy, start anew: some IDs have quite a bit invested in them, especially if they are real :) And so in this case, burning it off may be untenable, or simply too costly from a time and money perspective. b) Keep the addy, soldier on: although undesirable in the face of beeing seen, this may yet be the less expensive option; One must dutifully ignore what one can ignore, attempt to handle that which is possibly able to be handled with further feigned ignorance or "stretching things" (below is a good example) or etc. For us onlookers, b) is the preferred option, since the fun continues, XOR newcomers getting bitten occasionally - although that can also be fun - especially when 'innocent' little questions are asked to help provoke said newcomer into awareness of being taken for a ride. And ultimately, those who step up to the challenge and own their own rides (hat tip to Razer) receive the benefit of their duly exercised treadmill stepper machine. So, Stephen, in response to your tautological bluster below, try try again me boy, as the old saying goes... you're evidently up for it :) And it seems you have reading comprehension difficulties of another sort (aka attempting to ignore and pretend it wasn't said and that your mess just all goes away or something) - Tim May (and I'll point something out for you in case you missed that bit too - this is --THE-- Tim May, the very and and only one Tim May which you are so clumsily clamouring to for a curmudgeonly chip of external authority no less) has recently piped up and presented his austere and ever so conservative head on these matters. Oh ok, I'll give you another hint, I know these things are difficult for "solidly infested IDs" (whoops, I mean "invested") - there are three recent posts by Tim May, the one in the middle, that was a rather bad but bland troll which was resoundingly eclipsed by the well principled folks on this list whom I may be a little uncertain about, but clearly have more scruples than -you- me boy! Oh, and even Tim May responded to the troll in his usual conservative and pro state self. But please, do carry on, "why it's ever so much fun" said Alice. On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 12:07:54PM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
On 9/6/16 4:06 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 02:05:35PM -0700, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
On 9/5/16 2:07 PM, juan wrote:
On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 11:39:12 -0700 "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@lig.net> wrote:
What this does not include is promoting or bashing particular political systems or plotting their demise Cypherpunks archive 1992-->1998
I counted 4107 messages from Tim May, all containing the following signature
"Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero knowledge, reputations, information markets, black markets, collapse of governments."
Even after 4107 repetitions, the most dishonest retard should understand what crypyo ANARCHY is about.
For the record : collapse of governments You are still failing to understand English. And resorting to ad hominem. Lose lose lose. Hmm. Interesting. It sounds like you are alleging that Juan has failed to understand English.
Exactly. He is saying that this:
What this does not include is promoting or bashing particular political systems or plotting their demise is wrong because this:
"Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero knowledge, reputations, information markets, black markets, collapse of governments."
Means something like:
"We advocate and work toward all conceptions of Crypto Anarchy including all of these: encryption, digital money, anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero knowledge, reputations, information markets, black markets, collapse of governments."
And I am pointing out that it does not say that. Those words are in the form of a definition of 'Crypto Anarchy'. They do not state a charter of intent, preference, value, or anything else actionable. He is insisting that meaning is there that isn't.
To loosely characterize what Juan seems to want, concluding that "being on this list means you should be supporting any and all forms of anarchy over other forms of government and social systems" vs. "the availability of encryption, digital money, etc. might cause collapse of governments" or "some bad forms of government hopefully won't survive an end-run around their oppressive systems" is weakly supported.
Let's unpack this shall we? "No!" I hear you say? OK, let's unpack it anyway...
Nice attempt at being funny, but it is all weak.
1)
Firstly, you wrote this:
What this does not include is promoting or bashing particular political systems or plotting their demise Now I might be slow, but I do note the words [0-5, 13-15], which if I decode this masterful encoding which massively reduces the amount of space required in an email to reference specific words in another's quote, is actually the following sequence of words:
What this does not include is plotting their demise Oh, and the nounal object of your quote is "political systems", so to flesh it out:
What this does not include is plotting the demise of political systems
OK, got it. Since you tried to be subtle about it, with appeals to authority, cutting down some really vile straw men and establishing yourself as the "need"ed go to (when I say "go to" I mean "authority"), i.e. just sort of "slipping it in, hopefully sorta may be under the radar", we were, unfortunately, "need"ing to unpack your position.
So, we got it, "Do NOT plot the DEMISE of Political Systems, of which I am closely associated."
Because, you know, that would serious be offtopic for this list and a REAL violation of John Young and Tim May's foundations for what's on topic to be discussed on this list, and you gonna teach us all a real bad ass lesson if we violate those absolute, in stone, unviolable, rules.
Got it. Anarchy bad. USA goverment good. SDW authority.
Simple really. Escapes me why I never thunked of these simple truths before ... ? ? ???
Silly me..
2)
Now, secondly, Juan said this:
Cypherpunks archive 1992-->1998
I counted 4107 messages from Tim May, all containing the following signature
"Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero knowledge, reputations, information markets, black markets, collapse of governments."
Even after 4107 repetitions, the most dishonest retard should understand what crypyo ANARCHY is about.
For the record : collapse of governments And note that little bit about "crypto anarchy: collapse of governments".
Hmm, ok, Juan's response is quite simple really. It says what it means, provides a factual basis, and means what it says.
The very definition of integrity.
Thanks Juan, we need a bit of clarity occasionally. Really appreciated.
Top stuff!
3)
Now, finally, you said this:
You are still failing to understand English. Except that this was factual, which it's not, this is a slur, a few words designed to bypass any real debate and degrade the character of your target.
I'm pretty sure this technique has a proper name ... something like adding to homo sapiens names or something ... can't quite remember it...
And resorting to ad hominem. AHHHH!!! YES!!! That's what it is called. THANK you Stephen, I'd forgottten just for a moment - you just used an "ad hominem".
I did? Where? By guessing at the error being made here? Pointing out what I think is the source of an error isn't ad hominem.
Well well well. I wonder what we're supposed to say now. I'll check above for further guidance.
...
..
.
...
Found it! The end of your email Stephen:
Lose lose lose.
sdw