The response (or, perhaps in many cases, the lack of it) on this list to the discovery of the amazing fraud of the forgery of (at least) the 1995 version of the Cypherpunks archive has been, well, amazing.   I get the impression that there has been a certain...lack of enthusiasm for this task.  At least, not nearly enough useful commentary. No, I don't necessarily expect that the forgers are still here, but maybe their ideological and political 'allies' remain.  Put simply, maybe 'statists' didn't and don't like AP, and they want to do anything possible to delay or defeat it.  And, they know or guess that some of their ilk were presumably acting in 1995, engaging in discussings that the government (?) eventually wanted to conceal.   They did not want to leave a not-so-paper trail.  Their ideological brethren on CP, today, if any, want to continue to conceal and protect those 1995, and the data forgery that subsequently happened. Take this with the levity I intend.  I ask that each of you provide suggestions as to what to try.  But I don't want to give you an easy out by saying that if you cannot think of anything you, personally, can accomplish, you are excused.  If you have a good idea, and you throw it out to us, somebody else might like it, add to it, and maybe even accomplish it.  Think of this as brainstorming,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorming    . At the same time, some of you might be reticent:  Eventually, I believe we will identify those responsible for misconduct on the list in 1995, but also those people who forged and faked the archives.   I want to expose the people who, now, are in league with them.  Think of this as a Rorschach test.  You will likely be judged, by others, based on the credibility of the proposals you make.  I have already identified the problem, and made a number of suggestions.  I'd say it's YOUR turn.

From the article on brainstorming:

"Osborn's method: Osborn claimed that two principles contribute to "ideative efficacy," these being: - Defer judgment, - Reach for quantity. [6] Following these two principles were his four general rules of brainstorming, established with intention to : - reduce social inhibitions among group members. - stimulate idea generation. - increase overall creativity of the group. - Go for quantity: This rule is a mean of enhancing divergent production, aiming at facilitation of problem solution through the maxim quantity breeds quality. The assumption is that the greater the number of ideas generated the bigger the chance of producing a radical and effective solution. - Withhold criticism: In brainstorming, criticism of ideas generated should be put 'on hold'. Instead, participants should focus on extending or adding to ideas, reserving criticism for a later 'critical stage' of the process. By suspending judgment, participants will feel free to generate unusual ideas. - Welcome wild ideas: To get a good long list of suggestions, wild ideas are encouraged. They can be generated by looking from new perspectives and suspending assumptions. These new ways of thinking might give you better solutions. - Combine and improve ideas:As suggested by the slogan "1+1=3". It is believed to stimulate the building of ideas by a process of association. [6] | | | | | | | | | | | Brainstorming In other words, brainstorming is a situation where a group of people meet to generate new ideas and solutions ar... | | |