Re: Request to mailing list cryptography rejected
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 6:06 PM, <cryptography-owner@metzdowd.com> wrote:
Posting of your message titled "Re: [Cryptography] Blockchain currencies: The Death of 1000 Cuts"
Posting of your message titled "Cryptonomics, Digital Trust, Case of Short Behaviour in the Trading Pit"
has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the following reason for rejecting your request:
"We're basically holding off on currency discussions."
It is hypocritical to allow and approve threads and posts that start, continue, and subthread such discussions per charter, then censor others that do the same thing, especially so when exacted upon those simply countering other posters thoughts and data that were so approved. See archives below. "Cryptography" is a... mailing list devoted to cryptographic technology and its *political impact*. Occasionally... more generally... *security and privacy technology* and its *impact* "On topic" discussion includes technical aspects of cryptosystems, *social repercussions of cryptosystems*, and the *politics* of cryptography such as export controls or *laws* If you want to censor and pare the list down to some purer narrower form of "cryptography tech" talk only, which would surely be a fine resource, feel free, there's a long way to go there... starting with the charter and all the other posters equally. Lots of off topic material here... http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/ Note there also no *cryptography* or "security" or "privacy" of TLS over, or PKI signatures present on, the archive files either.
On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 19:06:05 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 6:06 PM, <cryptography-owner@metzdowd.com> wrote:
Posting of your message titled "Re: [Cryptography] Blockchain currencies: The Death of 1000 Cuts"
Posting of your message titled "Cryptonomics, Digital Trust, Case of Short Behaviour in the Trading Pit"
has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the following reason for rejecting your request:
"We're basically holding off on currency discussions."
priceless. But take into account that the 'cryptography' mailing list is the True Heir to the cpunks mailing list, john gilmore said so, IIRC. also take into account that the owner of the list can censor anyboady because he has the g'd given divine right to own people that post on 'his' list. By posting (or trying...) on 'his' list you become the property of that metzger scumbag and can say only what he allows you to say. also take into account that the most arbitrary forms of censorship are also the most perfect forms of 'freedom'!!, because 'property owners' can do whatever the fuck they want. See topic on 'private' roads. What are you, a commie who belives in free speech?
It is hypocritical to allow and approve threads and posts
nah, you don't understand just how godly the supreme powers of 'property owners' are.
that start, continue, and subthread such discussions per charter, then censor others that do the same thing, especially so when exacted upon those simply countering other posters thoughts and data that were so approved. See archives below.
"Cryptography" is a... mailing list devoted to cryptographic technology and its *political impact*. Occasionally... more generally... *security and privacy technology* and its *impact* "On topic" discussion includes technical aspects of cryptosystems, *social repercussions of cryptosystems*, and the *politics* of cryptography such as export controls or *laws*
If you want to censor and pare the list down to some purer narrower form of "cryptography tech" talk only, which would surely be a fine resource, feel free, there's a long way to go there... starting with the charter and all the other posters equally.
Lots of off topic material here... http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/
Note there also no *cryptography* or "security" or "privacy" of TLS over, or PKI signatures present on, the archive files either.
jj;
priceless. But take into account that the 'cryptography' mailing list is the True Heir to the cpunks mailing list, john gilmore said so, IIRC.
What, lol.
also take into account that the owner of the list can censor
It's theirs to do, and voluntary, so fork and unsub.
nah, you don't understand just how godly the supreme powers of 'property owners' are.
Funny the supreme powers some responsible property owners reserve, godly even... https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=build+silencer https://www.youtube.com/user/hickok45 Knowledge, skills, and property should be passed on, not censored, chained, and stolen. rr:
It would be nice if your digital money scam disappeared from the history of computing entirely.
Not happening. Cure that FOMO at your local cryptocurrency meetup.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 09:12:48PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
jj;
priceless. But take into account that the 'cryptography' mailing list is the True Heir to the cpunks mailing list, john gilmore said so, IIRC.
What, lol.
also take into account that the owner of the list can censor
It's theirs to do, and voluntary, so fork and unsub.
nah, you don't understand just how godly the supreme powers of 'property owners' are.
Funny the supreme powers some responsible property owners reserve, godly even... https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=build+silencer https://www.youtube.com/user/hickok45
Knowledge, skills, and property should be passed on, not censored, chained, and stolen.
Tell that to jewtube taking down vids and entire channels on such educational topics as how to reload your ammo shells. grarpamp: "So just fork and unsub Youtube, idiot!" Well, that might be possible, but it would be a massive effort at best - and this is an effort that at somepoint some of us MUST undertake.
rr:
It would be nice if your digital money scam disappeared from the history of computing entirely.
Not happening. Cure that FOMO at your local cryptocurrency meetup.
On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 21:12:48 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote: me>> also take into account that the owner of the list can censor
It's theirs to do, and voluntary, so fork and unsub.
You correctly notice they are censors, you called them hypocrites and you came to this list to 'complain' because there is no censorship on this list. And yet, the next thing you do is....laughably try to 'justify' censorship? Try to be a little more consistent instead. If you think they 'own' the list and the people in it, then you should congratulate them every time they censor, and suck their dicks hard. Because by censoring you, they are exercising their g'd given right to destroy free speech. Also, I can't unsubscribe from their list, because I'm not subscribed. But did you unsubscribe? As to the the fork part, yes, if you can actually avoid an attack by easily 'forking' something, then in pure practical terms it makes sense to do so. Though of course from a moral point of view the attackers still are scum. Yeah, keyword here is 'easily'...
nah, you don't understand just how godly the supreme powers of 'property owners' are.
Funny the supreme powers some responsible property owners reserve, godly even... https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=build+silencer https://www.youtube.com/user/hickok45
Knowledge, skills, and property should be passed on, not censored, chained, and stolen.
tell that to the censors....if they allow you to =)
rr:
It would be nice if your digital money scam disappeared from the history of computing entirely.
Not happening. Cure that FOMO at your local cryptocurrency meetup.
meh, bitcoin is off-topic on the cpunks mailing list. Rayzer said so!
On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 4:53 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
It's theirs to do, and voluntary, so fork and unsub.
'own' the list ...and... the people in it
These two are independant here, as they are free to voluntarily disembark from the owner without recourse and to subsequently create, join, and do whatever they want, or not. If the owner were to shoot the expats, then your conjunction would apply, unless being suicided was their voluntary choice. The forkers might also option to collect and message the non-lurker posters directly with invitations to leave, import the archives, sub the fork to list, the posters to the fork, etc. If the owner were to shoot a clone yet free list operating off their shores, that would be war. As to whether... - any one / group can successfully bend a stubborn owner without physical violence, say even to purchase / carve a place from that where all places are owned... - to "liberate", give education and charity to owned (whether they be happy unknowing sheeple, placated by free tv / weed / facebook, or even under compliance regimes up to actively being unfree to leave and shot)... You all can discuss.
Knowledge, skills, and property should be passed on, not censored, chained, and stolen.
tell that to the censors....if they allow you to =)
Sent them bunch of links to where they could find their Poe and other books they were afraid to link to, they replied to that with... "Your message was deemed inappropriate by the moderator." Some of their subs are here, now they know, good luck.
On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 18:31:51 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 4:53 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
It's theirs to do, and voluntary, so fork and unsub.
'own' the list ...and... the people in it
These two are independant here,
No They Are Not. The totalitarian, retarded sophism is this : The metzger scum 'owns' the 'list', so he can ACT as if HE OWNED THE POSTERS, as far as posting goes. Even the premise is wrong, because he doesn't even 'own' the list, he just may own the server. And the list is more than just a server.
as they are free to voluntarily disembark
Not The Point At All. That was yet another sophism.
Knowledge, skills, and property should be passed on, not censored, chained, and stolen.
tell that to the censors....if they allow you to =)
Sent them bunch of links to where they could find their Poe and other books they were afraid to link to, they replied to that with...
"Your message was deemed inappropriate by the moderator."
Some of their subs are here, now they know, good luck.
You just keep making my point. Your recourse against scum like metzger or any other censor is...what...use a FREE channel? So you don't have any recourse against these people if you play by their scum 'rules', go figure.
On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 6:44 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
, as far as posting goes.
Adding qualifiers changes the question.
recourse against scum like metzger or any other censor is...what...use a FREE channel?
What is your suggested recourse? Murder? Love? Talk? Tort? Subterfuge? Economic / other pressure? Protest? Suicide?
So you don't have any recourse against these people if you play by their scum 'rules', go figure.
What is your suggested mode of play?
On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 18:58:52 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 6:44 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
, as far as posting goes.
Adding qualifiers changes the question.
DUDE - quoting the end of a sentence is retarded. What are you replying to?
recourse against scum like metzger or any other censor is...what...use a FREE channel?
What is your suggested recourse?
Murder? Love? Talk? Tort? Subterfuge? Economic / other pressure? Protest? Suicide?
So you don't have any recourse against these people if you play by their scum 'rules', go figure.
What is your suggested mode of play?
Did you UNDERSTAND ANYTHING of what I previously wrote?
What are your suggestions as to recourse?
On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 19:57:40 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
What are your suggestions as to recourse?
No point in talking to people who do not listen. LIKE YOU. So when you let me know that you actually read and thought abpit what I wrote to you, I might continue.
On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:09:54PM -0300, Juan wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 19:57:40 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
What are your suggestions as to recourse?
No point in talking to people who do not listen. LIKE YOU.
So when you let me know that you actually read and thought abpit what I wrote to you, I might continue.
I think grarpamp reactively missed your apropos rhetoric "Your recourse against scum like metzger or any other censor is...what...use a FREE channel?" - perhaps since you emboldened the word "FREE" and so he missed that you were NOT doing reverse psychology and simply pointing out the obvious irony that now he's using a free (uncensored) comms channel. Which is in fact the solution, and yes, which grarpamp seems to be missing - The Ministry's programming is so powerful, that even "logical" thinkers like grarpamp miss the obvious (I'm guessing he still wants censorship, does not want the responsibility of being a censor himself, so wants someone else to do the censoring, but wants them to censor in just the way he wants the censoring to be so censored - namely, that he personally does not get censored). Yes, it is hilarious. Grarpamp could start a brissdowner fork, with his royal self the censor to show how censorship should REALLY be done - He only needs a great title to give authority to His Royal Self so the plebes bow low, massa, very low! How about Grarpamp, Royal Hilarion of Sublime Censorship
On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 13:07:15 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:09:54PM -0300, Juan wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 19:57:40 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
What are your suggestions as to recourse?
No point in talking to people who do not listen. LIKE YOU.
So when you let me know that you actually read and thought abpit what I wrote to you, I might continue.
I think grarpamp reactively missed your apropos rhetoric "Your recourse against scum like metzger or any other censor is...what...use a FREE channel?" - perhaps since you emboldened the word "FREE" and so he missed that you were NOT doing reverse psychology and simply pointing out the obvious irony that now he's using a free (uncensored) comms channel.
Yes, maybe he missed that point. It's actually a rather 'technical' and factual issue. We know there's censorship in metzger's list because that information can be freely communicated here. But if we follow the 'logic' of 'private' censorship, and all media are controlled by the alleged 'owners' then we would never know about censorship or about being in the matrix... Likewise, arguments with censors are meaningless since the censors can control what their opponents say.
Which is in fact the solution, and yes, which grarpamp seems to be missing - The Ministry's programming is so powerful, that even "logical" thinkers like grarpamp miss the obvious (I'm guessing he still wants censorship, does not want the responsibility of being a censor himself, so wants someone else to do the censoring, but wants them to censor in just the way he wants the censoring to be so censored - namely, that he personally does not get censored).
If you listen to fake libertarians they love to rant about how there's only 'property rights' and hence no free speech. It's a sophism that's convenient for lazy people. If you own your house, then people in your house can only say what you want to hear. LOLWUT. Oh yes, because "your house, your rules" again, lolwut. It's just conservative garbage, but people have been brainwashed into believing it's a 'sound argument'. When in reality, it is technically a non-sequitur. From "house ownership" it doesn't follow "you have the right to dictate what people in your house say" Just like, if someone is standing in your lawn and tresspasing, it doesn't follow that you have the right to execute him in 'self defense'. etc.
Yes, it is hilarious.
Grarpamp could start a brissdowner fork, with his royal self the censor to show how censorship should REALLY be done - He only needs a great title to give authority to His Royal Self so the plebes bow low, massa, very low!
How about
Grarpamp, Royal Hilarion of Sublime Censorship
My bad Juan, Im fucked. On Sat, Mar 24, 2018, 11:17 PM juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 13:07:15 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:09:54PM -0300, Juan wrote:
On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 19:57:40 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
What are your suggestions as to recourse?
No point in talking to people who do not listen. LIKE YOU.
So when you let me know that you actually read and thought abpit what I wrote to you, I might continue.
I think grarpamp reactively missed your apropos rhetoric "Your recourse against scum like metzger or any other censor is...what...use a FREE channel?" - perhaps since you emboldened the word "FREE" and so he missed that you were NOT doing reverse psychology and simply pointing out the obvious irony that now he's using a free (uncensored) comms channel.
Yes, maybe he missed that point. It's actually a rather 'technical' and factual issue.
We know there's censorship in metzger's list because that information can be freely communicated here. But if we follow the 'logic' of 'private' censorship, and all media are controlled by the alleged 'owners' then we would never know about censorship or about being in the matrix...
Likewise, arguments with censors are meaningless since the censors can control what their opponents say.
Which is in fact the solution, and yes, which grarpamp seems to be missing - The Ministry's programming is so powerful, that even "logical" thinkers like grarpamp miss the obvious (I'm guessing he still wants censorship, does not want the responsibility of being a censor himself, so wants someone else to do the censoring, but wants them to censor in just the way he wants the censoring to be so censored - namely, that he personally does not get censored).
If you listen to fake libertarians they love to rant about how there's only 'property rights' and hence no free speech.
It's a sophism that's convenient for lazy people. If you own your house, then people in your house can only say what you want to hear. LOLWUT. Oh yes, because "your house, your rules" again, lolwut.
It's just conservative garbage, but people have been brainwashed into believing it's a 'sound argument'. When in reality, it is technically a non-sequitur.
From "house ownership" it doesn't follow "you have the right to dictate what people in your house say"
Just like, if someone is standing in your lawn and tresspasing, it doesn't follow that you have the right to execute him in 'self defense'. etc.
Yes, it is hilarious.
Grarpamp could start a brissdowner fork, with his royal self the censor to show how censorship should REALLY be done - He only needs a great title to give authority to His Royal Self so the plebes bow low, massa, very low!
How about
Grarpamp, Royal Hilarion of Sublime Censorship
"you have the right to dictate what people in your house say"
Nobody said forced utterage. Though many have said if they're attempting to shit your bed, or have shit it, it's their right to throw them out.
if someone is standing in your lawn and tresspasing, it doesn't follow that you have the right to execute him
If you want to allow squatters in your bed, people to do whatever with your stuff, etc... that's up to you. Of course as usual you fail to offer solutions for those who don't. Or to offer anything about your suggested alternate world. Bye.
On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 04:50:49 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
"you have the right to dictate what people in your house say"
Nobody said forced utterage.
it is included as well. And irrelevant to the point being discussed, but then it's been clear for a while that you have zero arguments.
Though many have said if they're attempting to shit your bed, or have shit it, it's their right to throw them out.
keep up with the fascist, anti free speech slogans.
Of course as usual you fail to offer solutions for those who don't.
of course as usual you fail to make a single coherent argument and when your garbage is shown to be baseless garbage you demand "but you have to offer solutions"!!! so you demand that I provide solutions for you. My reply is : fuck you. Bottom line here : assholes like you who support censorship are the root of the problem. That should give you a hint as to where to find the solution you demand.
Or to offer anything about your suggested alternate world.
Bye.
On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 15:15:41 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
What are your solutions?
first solution is : do not enable supporters of censorship like yourself. Now go work on that one. second solution is to use a censorship-resistant network. The only one that might work as far as I know is freenet.
Just to make you smile, my love... <3 <https://youtu.be/khbR1ynNGsU> <https://cin-academy.co.jp/kasotsuka> PS: - If you need some translation, ask help to Juan, please. His 'nihongo' is much better than mine and very patient. It always make me feel proud of him. <3 And, well, I don't appreciate J-Pop so much. I hate very acute voices, ugh! :P But I love acute angles... <3 <https://imgur.com/gallery/KcMAZ> (They remember me pizza, yay!) I love you, my dear! Take care! :-* c. ---------- "Don't let anyone rob you of your imagination, your creativity, or your curiosity. It's your place in the world; it's your life. Go on and do all you can with it, and make it the life you want to live." - Mae Jemison
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 07:06:05PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 6:06 PM, <cryptography-owner@metzdowd.com> wrote:
Posting of your message titled "Re: [Cryptography] Blockchain currencies: The Death of 1000 Cuts"
Posting of your message titled "Cryptonomics, Digital Trust, Case of Short Behaviour in the Trading Pit"
has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the following reason for rejecting your request:
"We're basically holding off on currency discussions."
It is hypocritical to allow and approve threads and posts that start, continue, and subthread such discussions per charter, then censor others that do the same thing, especially so when exacted upon those simply countering other posters thoughts and data that were so approved. See archives below.
"Cryptography" is a... mailing list devoted to cryptographic technology and its *political impact*. Occasionally... more generally... *security and privacy technology* and its *impact* "On topic" discussion includes technical aspects of cryptosystems, *social repercussions of cryptosystems*, and the *politics* of cryptography such as export controls or *laws*
If you want to censor and pare the list down to some purer narrower form of "cryptography tech" talk only, which would surely be a fine resource, feel free, there's a long way to go there... starting with the charter and all the other posters equally.
Lots of off topic material here... http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/
Note there also no *cryptography* or "security" or "privacy" of TLS over, or PKI signatures present on, the archive files either.
Come on grarpamp - you knew the deal when metzdowner was created - it's a pro censorship list. Even Jordan Peterson (who used to say "hate speech" is "obviously" bad) is finally now saying "even the hate speech laws are problematic at their foundation, since who is going to define "hate"? Well I'll tell you who - those people whom you would LEAST want to be in charge of doing that!" (It took him a bloody while, but at least he got to this basic fundamental, and also puts it into words which many folk seem to be able to understand.) And so, re metzbergdowder censorship - the folks who you allow to censor (because they sold you on their "we'll do the right thing" message) are, as it turns out (surprise fucking surprise), the exact folks you do NOT want to be defining which conversations are allowed to happen. There is only one solution - gas the Jews right? I kid, I kid, what I really mean is throw them in an oven. Oh, alright - of course you're here on cypherpunks, and so you evidently know that censorship is not the best idea around, since almost invariably it DEVOLVES into one or another form of tyranny - which you have evidently just experienced. I.e.: bring your conversations back to an uncensored forum. Because, as Anglin always says, when it comes to certain problems, you can all but guarantee (((who))) is behind it: Anglin: “Every. Singly. Time.” Enjoy your britssdowd already :)
On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 6:02 AM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
...
Do not thread me into whatever crap you're doing with your Russia, Jew, Nazi and whatever other garbage you constantly post. Nor is such crap necessary to test or prove whatever about censorship all the time, and hardly on an uncensored list. Nor is it even remotely related to cypherpunk crypto technology privacy related politics law etc. If people here, many long before you, wanted to see / discuss soup recipes they would, and they're clearly not. Respect that. Even the most basic of filters can be deployed by readers against those who don't... https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Maildrop
On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 07:54:45PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 6:02 AM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
...
Do not thread me into whatever crap you're doing with your Russia, Jew, Nazi and whatever other garbage you constantly post.
Nor is such crap necessary to test or prove whatever about censorship all the time, and hardly on an uncensored list.
Nor is it even remotely related to cypherpunk crypto technology privacy related politics law etc.
If people here, many long before you, wanted to see / discuss soup recipes they would, and they're clearly not. Respect that.
Even the most basic of filters can be deployed by readers against those who don't... https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Maildrop
So you complain about censorship of a pro-censorship list, on a non-censorship list (because you finally got personally censored), get some feedback ("why complain, you knew the deal when you joined/ promoted that list") - and then ask me to self censor because you don't like my feedback to your complaint, given on the non-censored list. Seriously? Are you smoking, snorting and shooting up as you reply? Duuude, like, good luck with that already..
participants (5)
-
Cecilia Tanaka -
grarpamp -
juan -
Robert Riviere -
Zenaan Harkness