more cuck for Barack - Judge Jeanine dishes out another serve
Judge Jeanine is another right-leaning conservative - "Literally Hertler!" we hear the alt-Lefties cry... (And some more ascii tears for Shawn K. Quinine.) Judge Jeanine exposes Barack Obama’s petty attempt to derail Trump’s presidency by lying about Russian election hacking http://theduran.com/judge-jeanine-exposes-barack-obamas-petty-attempt-to-der... -- * Certified Deplorable Neo-Nazi Fake News Hunter (TM)(C)(R) * Executive Director of Triggers, Ministry of Winning * Weapons against traditional \/\/European\/\/ values: http://davidduke.com/jewish-professor-boasts-of-jewish-pornography-used-as-a... * How Liberal Lefties view the world: http://bbs.dailystormer.com/uploads/default/optimized/3X/0/4/042cb95724339d5...
On 12/12/2016 03:28 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Judge Jeanine is another right-leaning conservative - "Literally Hertler!" we hear the alt-Lefties cry...
(And some more ascii tears for Shawn K. Quinine.)
Q-U-I-N-N. Five letters. Learn to spell. Learn to read. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com
On 12/12/2016 07:15 AM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
Q-U-I-N-N. Five letters. Learn to spell. Learn to read.
It's intentional. Like people who refer to my handle as Raz0r or somesuch. It's hard to take people who do that seriously and I believe it's a way to shut down convos they don't want to have. Personally, and finally, after seeing the word "NordFront" in the subject line of one of Z's recent posts, I blocked his posts at the server. If people continue mentioning him a lot I'll add a filter here that spamcans all mentions too. He's abusing the facilities broadcasting things that aren't remotely related to any historical reason this list exists for, and he knows it. Rr
On Dec 12, 2016, at 10:57 AM, Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
On 12/12/2016 07:15 AM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
Q-U-I-N-N. Five letters. Learn to spell. Learn to read.
It's intentional. Like people who refer to my handle as Raz0r or somesuch.
It's hard to take people who do that seriously and I believe it's a way to shut down convos they don't want to have.
Personally, and finally, after seeing the word "NordFront" in the subject line of one of Z's recent posts, I blocked his posts at the server. If people continue mentioning him a lot I'll add a filter here that spamcans all mentions too.
He's abusing the facilities broadcasting things that aren't remotely related to any historical reason this list exists for, and he knows it.
Rr
"Quinine" - oh that's clever! Heh. Irreverent nazis are so cute! Dick Spencer said so, it must be true! Fuck Zen - a more widely reviled, useless creature does not exist on this list.
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
He's abusing the facilities broadcasting things that aren't remotely related to any historical reason this list exists for, and he knows it.
Z was kicked off the Debian and other lists for violating them too. People think their posts get read but once you filter them and their usual repliers/threads out to some rarely seen maildir, the list gets very quiet and their hot air vents to space where no one hears.
On 12/12/2016 10:03 AM, grarpamp wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
He's abusing the facilities broadcasting things that aren't remotely related to any historical reason this list exists for, and he knows it.
Z was kicked off the Debian and other lists for violating them too.
Yeah, I saw that too.
People think their posts get read but once you filter them and their usual repliers/threads out to some rarely seen maildir, the list gets very quiet and their hot air vents to space where no one hears.
I imagine that there could be subsets that ignore each other. I saw that on Usenet. Only naive users would see both.
On Dec 12, 2016, at 6:51 PM, Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 12/12/2016 10:03 AM, grarpamp wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
He's abusing the facilities broadcasting things that aren't remotely related to any historical reason this list exists for, and he knows it.
Z was kicked off the Debian and other lists for violating them too.
Yeah, I saw that too.
People think their posts get read but once you filter them and their usual repliers/threads out to some rarely seen maildir, the list gets very quiet and their hot air vents to space where no one hears.
I imagine that there could be subsets that ignore each other. I saw that on Usenet. Only naive users would see both.
https://synfin.org/zen.lua Easily modified to just trash the messages (what I am now doing) or move them to another folder or whatever. I’m sure a procmail or maildrop recipe even simpler. John
I imagine that there could be subsets that ignore each other. I saw that on Usenet. Only naive users would see both.
That could happen on open broadcast mediums. Though usually in an unmanaged system / hier the signal gets tired of filtering and moves elsewhere, thus leaving the noise behind where they can keep high fiving their own awesomeness.
On 12/13/2016 01:54 AM, grarpamp wrote:
I imagine that there could be subsets that ignore each other. I saw that on Usenet. Only naive users would see both.
That could happen on open broadcast mediums. Though usually in an unmanaged system / hier the signal gets tired of filtering and moves elsewhere, thus leaving the noise behind where they can keep high fiving their own awesomeness.
Yes, trolls sometimes win :( But cpunks is an old meme, and has been through worse.
On 12/12/2016 07:50 PM, John Newman wrote:
On Dec 12, 2016, at 6:51 PM, Mirimir <mirimir@riseup.net> wrote:
On 12/12/2016 10:03 AM, grarpamp wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
He's abusing the facilities broadcasting things that aren't remotely related to any historical reason this list exists for, and he knows it.
Z was kicked off the Debian and other lists for violating them too.
Yeah, I saw that too.
People think their posts get read but once you filter them and their usual repliers/threads out to some rarely seen maildir, the list gets very quiet and their hot air vents to space where no one hears.
I imagine that there could be subsets that ignore each other. I saw that on Usenet. Only naive users would see both.
Easily modified to just trash the messages (what I am now doing) or move them to another folder or whatever. I’m sure a procmail or maildrop recipe even simpler.
John
I'm just a simple Thunderbird user ;) Tools / Message Filters with rules for from and body
On Dec 12, 2016 12:16 PM, "Shawn K. Quinn" <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
On 12/12/2016 03:28 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
(And some more ascii tears for Shawn K. Quinine.)
Q-U-I-N-N. Five letters. Learn to spell. Learn to read.
My dear Shawn, Zzz is provoking you intentionally. He wants to annoy you, because he is childish, immature and wants attention. Any kind of attention, good or not. Ignore him, please. It's the best way of showing his place, his real importance in this list: - Zzz... ero! :) He does not have intelligence, sensibility or ethics. This troll is a complete loser, without a life or friends. So, the only way his poor limited mind found to get a little bit of attention is provoking, shocking and hurting people in lists and groups. :(( He's trying to find other neonazists, KKK members, white supremacists and dictatorship supporters, but fortunately this pernicious creature was not successful here. He is always talking, talking, and... (~o~) yawn! Zzz... Oh, sorry, his blah-blah-blah about racist bullsh¡t is so interesting! I always yawn and sleep when I am fascinated! ;) Don't feed the trolls, Shawn. Let them starving until the death. I will (try to) do the same. Don't feel pity or compassion, please. Jesus certainly loves Zzz, but everyone else thinks he's a complete waste of space, so useful like a perforated condom and so intelligent and agile like a dead slug, always spreading intolerance, lies and fake news. Oh, wait! Sorry, Juan and John always say Jesus never existed, so... Well, you understood! ;) Ceci PS: - Hope there are no reincarnations and no karmas, because I really don't want to meet this loser in another life. Aff... I had Zzz enough for this life and all the eventual future existences, yuck!! :P On Dec 12, 2016 12:16 PM, "Shawn K. Quinn" <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
On 12/12/2016 03:28 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Judge Jeanine is another right-leaning conservative - "Literally Hertler!" we hear the alt-Lefties cry...
(And some more ascii tears for Shawn K. Quinine.)
Q-U-I-N-N. Five letters. Learn to spell. Learn to read.
-- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com
On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 21:35:39 -0200 Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't feed the trolls, Shawn.
As I already pointed out your beloved shawn is the biggest troll in this list. A fucking american nazi who wants to censor the list. And your repugnant, constant bootlicking for such a clown gives a lot of information about your true self.
Oh, wait! Sorry, Juan and John always say Jesus never existed, so...
So you are now mocking people who say the truth. Yet another hint about what you stand for.
Well, you understood! ;)
birds of a feather...
Ceci
On Dec 12, 2016 8:57 PM, "juan" <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't feed the trolls, Shawn.
As I already pointed out your beloved shawn is the biggest troll
in this list. So what, Juan? You "already pointed out blah-blah-blah", but you are wrong. Quinn is not my friend, he is not my "beloved Shawn" and, obviously, is not the biggest troll in this list. Zzz and you are better candidates! ;) Hey, are you jealous? Don't worry, I still love you much more than "my beloved Shawn", haha!! ;D I am calling him "Shawn" instead "Quinn" hoping Zzz finally learn to write his name correctly, but it's a waste of time. Zzz is not smart enough, haha!! ;D
A fucking american nazi who wants to censor the list.
Oh, my Saint Darwin, where is the evolution here? This same blah-blah-blah again? You are very repetitive, my dear. :-/ Few days ago, you also said I want to censor the list and told a lot of lies about my past messages, ignoring their content purposely only to "prove" you were correct. It was _not_ honest, you know it and never apologized for your unfair and aggressive messages. Sorry, I sincerely don't care whether Shawn is North-American, Korean, Indian, Chinese, French or Mexican. The only nazist here is you dearest buddie Zzz. Do you like his racist discourses, Juan? You are always defending him, what is pretty contraditory. You are not the same anymore. :(( I said millions of times: - I don't care about your opinion about me, my ideas and my life. I won't change my convictions or my way of being because of you. Don't try to impose me your ideas, please. It will be a complete waste of time and patience: mine and yours.
And your repugnant, constant bootlicking for such a clown gives a
lot of information about your true self. "Bootlicking"? Wrong fetish and wrong guy, 'mal cogido'. Try it again, hahaha!! ;D
Oh, wait! Sorry, Juan and John always say Jesus never existed, so...
So you are now mocking people who say the truth. Yet another hint about what you stand for.
D'oooh! I am not questioning if Jesus existed or not, dumb. I said "Jesus certainly loves Zzz", but if Jesus never existed... Did you understand the joke now or do you need I explain it in Spanish and in a slower and easier way? :P You need to stop to talk so much with Zzz, Juan. You are becoming pretty "burro" too. :-/ I love you, but you are "o argentino mais chato e reclamão que já conheci em toda minha vida", droga! E aposto que eu já conheci muito mais argentinos que você, seu antipático! :P Take care, 'mal cogido'. When you are not being irrational, with bad mood and a premenstrual tension much stronger than mine, I really like you and you know it's true.
On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 22:51:23 -0200 Cecilia Tanaka <cecilia.tanaka@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 12, 2016 8:57 PM, "juan" <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
Don't feed the trolls, Shawn.
As I already pointed out your beloved shawn is the biggest troll
in this list.
So what, Juan? You "already pointed out blah-blah-blah", but you are wrong. Quinn is not my friend, he is not my "beloved Shawn" and, obviously, is not the biggest troll in this list. Zzz and you are better candidates! ;)
Why? I, unlike quinn, am not a statist nor I advocate censorship in a list devoted to cyber freedom. Quinn on the other hand wants censorship, something which, as a few people noticed, goes against core cypherpunk values. If a person subscribes to a mailing list devoted to principles he despises, he surely must be trolling. Trolling big time. Zen's pro-putin, pro-trump nonsense isn't exactly aligned with cypherpunk values either, just in case such a glaring fact needs to be underscored.
Hey, are you jealous? Don't worry, I still love you much more than "my beloved Shawn", haha!! ;D
Oh, that's nice of you but since you also 'love' people like quinn, I do wonder at what being 'loved' by you really means =)
I am calling him "Shawn" instead "Quinn" hoping Zzz finally learn to write his name correctly, but it's a waste of time. Zzz is not smart enough, haha!! ;D
Referring to quinn as quinine is pretty sensible.
A fucking american nazi who wants to censor the list.
Oh, my Saint Darwin, where is the evolution here? This same blah-blah-blah again? You are very repetitive, my dear. :-/
Let me know when things change(for good), then I'll stop 'complaining'.
Few days ago, you also said I want to censor the list and told a lot of lies about my past messages, ignoring their content purposely only to "prove" you were correct. It was _not_ honest, you know it and never apologized for your unfair and aggressive messages.
I didn't say you wanted to censor this list. I said you never spoke against censorship. And yes, I was wrong about that, you did post a few messages against censorship....while at the same time being rather friendly to the wannabe censors like quinn. So I repeat that I am not impressed. But more imporant, you do support censorship...elsewhere. On your own words : "I am not saying their rules are right or fair, but Tor-Talk is one of their lists, Juan. Their list, their rules." See? That is you supporting censorship. Notice also the lack of consistency of your position. You say it is not 'right' but you assume it can be done anyway. So 'their rules' must be right after all eh? But maybe you need to think about your position a bit more carefully. Either their 'rules' are 'right' so what they do IS 'fair'...or...something else...
Sorry, I sincerely don't care whether Shawn is North-American, Korean, Indian, Chinese, French or Mexican. The only nazist here is you dearest buddie Zzz. Do you like his racist discourses, Juan?
No I don't.
You are always defending him, what is pretty contraditory. You are not the same anymore. :((
This is my defense of zen : as a supporter of putin and trump zen has shown that he's as retarded as quinn
Oh, wait! Sorry, Juan and John always say Jesus never existed, so...
So you are now mocking people who say the truth. Yet another hint about what you stand for.
D'oooh! I am not questioning if Jesus existed or not, dumb. I said "Jesus certainly loves Zzz", but if Jesus never existed... Did you understand the joke now
Oh, OK. Looks like I skipped too much when reading your wordy messages. My bad and I profusely apologize...
or do you need I explain it in Spanish and in a slower and easier way? :P
You need to stop to talk so much with Zzz, Juan. You are becoming pretty "burro" too. :-/
I love you, but you are "o argentino mais chato e reclamão que já conheci em toda minha vida", droga! E aposto que eu já conheci muito mais argentinos que você, seu antipático! :P
Take care, 'mal cogido'. When you are not being irrational, with bad mood and a premenstrual tension much stronger than mine, I really like you and you know it's true.
Whatever =)
On 12/13/2016 01:13 PM, #$%& wrote:
Why? I, unlike quinn, am not a statist nor I advocate censorship on a list devoted to cyber freedom. Quinn on the other hand wants censorship, something which, as a few people noticed, goes against core cypherpunk values. If a person subscribes to a mailing list devoted to principles he despises, he surely must be trolling. Trolling big time.
Again, this time with definitions: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moderation Noun moderation (countable and uncountable, plural moderations) [...] The process of moderating a discussion https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moderate Verb moderate (third-person singular simple present moderates, present participle moderating, simple past and past participle moderated) [...] (intransitive) To become less excessive [...] (intransitive) To act as a moderator; to assist in bringing to compromise Contrast this with: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/censorship Noun censorship (countable and uncountable, plural censorships) The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression or press, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated. One is still free to post one's own thoughts elsewhere when presented with a moderated forum whose members do not allow them or otherwise declare them to be off topic. By all means, please start neonaziandkkkpunks@longlivehitler.wherever.com if that's what you want. But please recognize moderating the list we are on now would still leave you free to express whatever you want. The rest of us that actually want to discuss cypherpunk values could do without all this garbage, filth, and spam. I despise censorship (just read the archives of the first blog in my sig) and I am frequently cited as the most anti-censorship guy among my various large groups of friends. I'm the first one to add PDF versions of banned books to my BitTorrent client to further any attempt to preserve them for the ages. Moderation is a completely different concept than outright censorship, and it is important to learn the huge difference. -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 13:32:37 -0600 "Shawn K. Quinn" <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
I despise censorship
And thus the totalitarian quinn keeps trolling.
(just read the archives of the first blog in my sig)
Sonny, you won't get any clicks from me, but I certainly read the garbage you post here. Your posts in this list contain only calls for censorship and general support for statism.
and I am frequently cited as the most anti-censorship guy among my various large groups of friends.
Sure. You are not trolling at this very moment. Your made up bullshit about your imaginary 'friends' is no doubt the ultimate proof of your anti-censorship credentials. Hsy, according to 'my friends' I am an alien from another galaxy. It is a fact because 'they' say so.
I'm the first one to add PDF versions of banned books to my BitTorrent client to further any attempt to preserve them for the ages. Moderation is a completely different concept than outright censorship,
Oh yes. Moderation is not literally "outright censorship". It is "outright censorship" with a different name. No doubt the change of name makes it wholly different.
and it is important to learn the huge difference.
You no doubt are a Master of Hypocrysy. 'Teaching' people how to be intellectual frauds is not something that decent guys do, though. But go ahead, keep enlightening the Cypherpunks - I wouldn't be too surprised if you get your censorship regime implemented.
On Dec 13, 2016, at 2:49 PM, juan wrote: Oh yes. Moderation is not literally "outright censorship". It is "outright censorship" with a different name. No doubt the change of name makes it wholly different.
A thought experiment: you have a group chat, irc or XMPP or whatever. There are a few dozen people or so in the group (doesn't really matter the number), it's a technical discussion about programming... <whatever> - some collaborative open source project. By your standards, is it censorship to kick ban a troll(s) that keeps joining the chat, talks totally off topic bullshit, disrupting actual productive conversation/work ? Also, please don't pretend I'm arguing for moderation on cypherpunks - I'm not, I never have, and I think it's an awful fit for this list.
On 12/13/2016 04:06 PM, John Newman wrote:
Also, please don't pretend I'm arguing for moderation on cypherpunks - I'm not, I never have, and I think it's an awful fit for this list.
What is your alternative proposal for cleaning up the list and ensuring its continued existence? If you have a way to rid of all the e-turds being sent to this list without moderation, I'm all ears. However, at the current rate, in a couple of months "moderator(s)" wouldn't be an accurate description of those with the responsibility--it would be more like "zookeeper(s)." -- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com
On Dec 13, 2016, at 5:19 PM, Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> wrote:
On 12/13/2016 04:06 PM, John Newman wrote: Also, please don't pretend I'm arguing for moderation on cypherpunks - I'm not, I never have, and I think it's an awful fit for this list.
What is your alternative proposal for cleaning up the list and ensuring its continued existence?
If you have a way to rid of all the e-turds being sent to this list without moderation, I'm all ears. However, at the current rate, in a couple of months "moderator(s)" wouldn't be an accurate description of those with the responsibility--it would be more like "zookeeper(s)."
Setup mail filters if you feel the need. I think it's important this list stay open - what lofty personage would be the moderator? Honestly, it's an anarchist list for christ sake, for technically minded people - to configure client side filters is trivial. Moderation is really a horrible fit for this list (and I hate the nazi bullshit as much as anyone) -- John
-- Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn@rushpost.com> http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 13 December 2016 22:06:59 GMT, John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Dec 13, 2016, at 2:49 PM, juan wrote: Oh yes. Moderation is not literally "outright censorship". It is "outright censorship" with a different name. No doubt the change of name makes it wholly different.
A thought experiment: you have a group chat, irc or XMPP or whatever. There are a few dozen people or so in the group (doesn't really matter the number), it's a technical discussion about programming... <whatever> - some collaborative open source project.
By your standards, is it censorship to kick ban a troll(s) that keeps joining the chat, talks totally off topic bullshit, disrupting actual productive conversation/work ?
Also, please don't pretend I'm arguing for moderation on cypherpunks - I'm not, I never have, and I think it's an awful fit for this list.
Wrong thought experiment, a chat is realtime - conversation becomes lost when trolls attack but a mail list allows for emails to hang around long enough to be read and replied to despite any spam that might appear in thw thread. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQI7BAEBCgAlHhxvc2h3bSA8b3Nod21Ab3Blbm1haWxib3gub3JnPgUCWFB2TgAK CRAqeAcYSpG1iDnyEACgJrwhvr0J7NZjF7HHmkgTQDk1WkS46xooP/KhzhE0AFG2 4YOyvg1P5cVA5rTX6P4DReHXrSg4+axw3Fxv9NP/zQ5wgg/Ux6ObotQtsWXraf8d Stssgav2wYHNAJQtzpsUiX15/XCagn+NGRnwFP86+gpsKDpw8axy9OkxqZ3QGtq2 tZ0rtqsiLxEw9K9cK0jGPZHNS5uwnnEB5m7KhoZscpHK7mMB1nx/ypDyjYqYTl8s QBJxstvUsnuzauvxEtEAqDTemuaL/bvylnlWW4X9MUmeLvwUn6fFVdZgBws0Gevf Jy1Vt7rbEIQJLNvpBgsO+XzfnVbOks/v/wpzyGYbizFe7kmmwFfIsQGZkpuFxIMc lNSJIkTnsvTg2yCfl4ZT5BWSL/L4tJSGG2XfVmn5TSSbZPBrloQa71Dv6b/dbI0x NfF4E7ZlGvevdXEzMzAL1UoVbW8EHVR65a3oFbRlUf1stE52TaNJ105Vs5vtOI9N 65H2G1lF2tLh9yumDrKmEahSnvOdatr4WZd65C4Vz1/MYNQqbdA9DGEENYBOdLwk hirweH1Ocf5H92Py3+eK/EVvzPZ0kDWB4GjYm0n7qwYNDixic2BdP3aMXUnRntPL GlfqpDxozB6E9kEyvdBMMibekGOHi4SaaOb2xMvDi0uwT4KyBN9NLflHSwx+lg== =2kSl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Dec 13, 2016, at 5:29 PM, oshwm <oshwm@openmailbox.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
On 13 December 2016 22:06:59 GMT, John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Dec 13, 2016, at 2:49 PM, juan wrote: Oh yes. Moderation is not literally "outright censorship". It is "outright censorship" with a different name. No doubt the change of name makes it wholly different.
A thought experiment: you have a group chat, irc or XMPP or whatever. There are a few dozen people or so in the group (doesn't really matter the number), it's a technical discussion about programming... <whatever> - some collaborative open source project.
By your standards, is it censorship to kick ban a troll(s) that keeps joining the chat, talks totally off topic bullshit, disrupting actual productive conversation/work ?
Also, please don't pretend I'm arguing for moderation on cypherpunks - I'm not, I never have, and I think it's an awful fit for this list.
Wrong thought experiment, a chat is realtime - conversation becomes lost when trolls attack but a mail list allows for emails to hang around long enough to be read and replied to despite any spam that might appear in thw thread.
That was part of the reason I framed it that way. Curious what Juan's thoughts were.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQI7BAEBCgAlHhxvc2h3bSA8b3Nod21Ab3Blbm1haWxib3gub3JnPgUCWFB2TgAK CRAqeAcYSpG1iDnyEACgJrwhvr0J7NZjF7HHmkgTQDk1WkS46xooP/KhzhE0AFG2 4YOyvg1P5cVA5rTX6P4DReHXrSg4+axw3Fxv9NP/zQ5wgg/Ux6ObotQtsWXraf8d Stssgav2wYHNAJQtzpsUiX15/XCagn+NGRnwFP86+gpsKDpw8axy9OkxqZ3QGtq2 tZ0rtqsiLxEw9K9cK0jGPZHNS5uwnnEB5m7KhoZscpHK7mMB1nx/ypDyjYqYTl8s QBJxstvUsnuzauvxEtEAqDTemuaL/bvylnlWW4X9MUmeLvwUn6fFVdZgBws0Gevf Jy1Vt7rbEIQJLNvpBgsO+XzfnVbOks/v/wpzyGYbizFe7kmmwFfIsQGZkpuFxIMc lNSJIkTnsvTg2yCfl4ZT5BWSL/L4tJSGG2XfVmn5TSSbZPBrloQa71Dv6b/dbI0x NfF4E7ZlGvevdXEzMzAL1UoVbW8EHVR65a3oFbRlUf1stE52TaNJ105Vs5vtOI9N 65H2G1lF2tLh9yumDrKmEahSnvOdatr4WZd65C4Vz1/MYNQqbdA9DGEENYBOdLwk hirweH1Ocf5H92Py3+eK/EVvzPZ0kDWB4GjYm0n7qwYNDixic2BdP3aMXUnRntPL GlfqpDxozB6E9kEyvdBMMibekGOHi4SaaOb2xMvDi0uwT4KyBN9NLflHSwx+lg== =2kSl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 19:15:39 -0500 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Dec 13, 2016, at 5:29 PM, oshwm <oshwm@openmailbox.org> wrote:
Wrong thought experiment, a chat is realtime - conversation becomes lost when trolls attack but a mail list allows for emails to hang around long enough to be read and replied to despite any spam that might appear in thw thread.
That was part of the reason I framed it that way. Curious what Juan's thoughts were.
Well even in the case of real time text chat, the problem is trivially solved by filtering at the client's side. Now if we were talking about a multi-party phone conversation...but that's a bit more far fetched or an edge case... On the other hand, you could argue that there are 'private' communications, but a similar problem would arise. In a small group it's quite possible that there would be a majority that wants to impose certain 'rules' about what can or cannot be said. Which is a problem. Also, the private/public distinction is rather ambiguous because from the point of view of the members of the 'private' group, the group works as if it were public (accessible to all members).
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 17:06:59 -0500 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Dec 13, 2016, at 2:49 PM, juan wrote: Oh yes. Moderation is not literally "outright censorship". It is "outright censorship" with a different name. No doubt the change of name makes it wholly different.
A thought experiment: you have a group chat, irc or XMPP or whatever. There are a few dozen people or so in the group (doesn't really matter the number), it's a technical discussion about programming... <whatever> - some collaborative open source project.
By your standards, is it censorship to kick ban a troll(s)
Yes it is. By the way, it's quite clear that the term troll can be used to mean anything. Just look at arch-trolls like rayzer or quinn whining about trolls. And at the 'technical' level 1) Last time I checked IRC had an /ignore nick command. 2) I would have thought people in this list would be searching for decentralized, censorship-resistent systems, not the opposite in which an 'admin' has somehow gotten divine powers and rights.
that keeps joining the chat, talks totally off topic bullshit, disrupting actual productive conversation/work ?
Also, please don't pretend I'm arguing for moderation on cypherpunks
I don't pretend anything. It seems clear that you are arguing for censorship *in general*. You can add the proviso that you don't want censorship in this list which is fine and a start, but you are still arguing for censorship. Or analyzing censorship by means of thought experients =P
- I'm not, I never have, and I think it's an awful fit for this list.
It is an awful fit for any communication medium.
On Dec 13, 2016, at 6:21 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 17:06:59 -0500 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Dec 13, 2016, at 2:49 PM, juan wrote: Oh yes. Moderation is not literally "outright censorship". It is "outright censorship" with a different name. No doubt the change of name makes it wholly different.
A thought experiment: you have a group chat, irc or XMPP or whatever. There are a few dozen people or so in the group (doesn't really matter the number), it's a technical discussion about programming... <whatever> - some collaborative open source project.
By your standards, is it censorship to kick ban a troll(s)
Yes it is. By the way, it's quite clear that the term troll can be used to mean anything. Just look at arch-trolls like rayzer or quinn whining about trolls.
And at the 'technical' level
1) Last time I checked IRC had an /ignore nick command.
2) I would have thought people in this list would be searching for decentralized, censorship-resistent systems, not the opposite in which an 'admin' has somehow gotten divine powers and rights.
I don't support censorship, all your claims to the contrary ;) At the same time, I don't support people telling me how I can configure my own software on my own hardware whose network traffic I pay for. For instance, I don't consider locking my mail server down so it's not an open relay to be censorship (some people do - see toad.com). Trying to enforce software configurations I'm not interested in, on my shit, under any pretense, is fascism.
that keeps joining the chat, talks totally off topic bullshit, disrupting actual productive conversation/work ?
Also, please don't pretend I'm arguing for moderation on cypherpunks
I don't pretend anything. It seems clear that you are arguing for censorship *in general*. You can add the proviso that you don't want censorship in this list which is fine and a start, but you are still arguing for censorship. Or analyzing censorship by means of thought experients =P
- I'm not, I never have, and I think it's an awful fit for this list.
It is an awful fit for any communication medium.
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 18:47:49 -0500 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
I don't support censorship, all your claims to the contrary ;) At the same time, I don't support people telling me how I can configure my own software on my own hardware whose network traffic I pay for.
I "dully" note you seemt to have ignored everything else I said.
For instance, I don't consider locking my mail server down so it's not an open relay to be censorship (some people do - see toad.com). Trying to enforce software configurations I'm not interested in, on my shit, under any pretense, is fascism.
As long as your hardware doens't carry other people's speech, fine. The facscist/conservtive dictum "my network, my fascist rules for speech" remains just that however. A fascist dictum. Anyway, I agree that some traffic can be classified as outright spam, like, say, advertising posted by bots, but blocking that sort of traffic is not really what's been discussed here.
On Dec 13, 2016, at 7:02 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 18:47:49 -0500 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
I don't support censorship, all your claims to the contrary ;) At the same time, I don't support people telling me how I can configure my own software on my own hardware whose network traffic I pay for.
I "dully" note you seemt to have ignored everything else I said.
I was curious what your take on the "thought experiment" was. I find the issue maybe a little more nuanced, but I'm not interested in a flame war (at all), so I was happy to hear your take. Dully noted ;)
For instance, I don't consider locking my mail server down so it's not an open relay to be censorship (some people do - see toad.com). Trying to enforce software configurations I'm not interested in, on my shit, under any pretense, is fascism.
As long as your hardware doens't carry other people's speech, fine.
The facscist/conservtive dictum "my network, my fascist rules for speech" remains just that however. A fascist dictum.
Anyway, I agree that some traffic can be classified as outright spam, like, say, advertising posted by bots, but blocking that sort of traffic is not really what's been discussed here.
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 09:02:53PM -0300, Juan wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 18:47:49 -0500 John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
I don't support censorship, all your claims to the contrary ;) At the same time, I don't support people telling me how I can configure my own software on my own hardware whose network traffic I pay for.
I "dully" note you seemt to have ignored everything else I said.
For instance, I don't consider locking my mail server down so it's not an open relay to be censorship (some people do - see toad.com). Trying to enforce software configurations I'm not interested in, on my shit, under any pretense, is fascism.
As long as your hardware doens't carry other people's speech, fine.
The facscist/conservtive dictum "my network, my fascist rules for speech" remains just that however. A fascist dictum.
Then, any "small fascist communications collective" can also be called a private club. The problem with that becomes when that "small fascist collective" becomes a large fascist collective, such as Twitter, Google and Facebook - they are no longer small private clubs. AND they advertised themselves specifically on the basis of freedom of speech (at least Twitter did). And so their actual deceptions to the public (that they are free speech platforms), has become a fundamental undermine for us humans in the world (those who use said platforms anyway). ALSO, these corporations were built on fascist non-free-market monopolistic statutory protections. SO, they should pay a very hefty price for their deception. They should be forced for example to make it easy to all their members to use / interoperate with alternative platforms, and they should have to very prominantly display that they are fundamentally fascist. Jailing people who publish information and images about the crimes of others, protects those who perpetrate the crimes, and hides those crimes from the public, feeding the ostrich syndrome of cucked loosers. So without free speech, we protect criminals.
Anyway, I agree that some traffic can be classified as outright spam, like, say, advertising posted by bots, but blocking that sort of traffic is not really what's been discussed here.
-- * Certified Deplorable Neo-Nazi Fake News Hunter (TM)(C)(R) * Executive Director of Triggers, Ministry of Winning * Weapons against traditional \/\/European\/\/ values: http://davidduke.com/jewish-professor-boasts-of-jewish-pornography-used-as-a... * How Liberal Lefties view the world: http://bbs.dailystormer.com/uploads/default/optimized/3X/0/4/042cb95724339d5...
On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:12:13 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
Then, any "small fascist communications collective" can also be called a private club.
Well it can be called fascist if it's actually run along authoritarian lines. Though no doubt the 'private club' concept lends itself to that sort of abuse.
The problem with that becomes when that "small fascist collective" becomes a large fascist collective, such as Twitter, Google and Facebook - they are no longer small private clubs.
Big clubs just amplify the problems caused by small clubs. Besides those firms are controlled by small nominally private - fascist - clubs. Aka boards of directors and the like.
AND they advertised themselves specifically on the basis of freedom of speech (at least Twitter did).
'freedom of speech' 'regulated' by the US government...
And so their actual deceptions to the public (that they are free speech platforms), has become a fundamental undermine for us humans in the world (those who use said platforms anyway).
ALSO, these corporations were built on fascist non-free-market monopolistic statutory protections.
Indeed. So they are never going to provide any freedom of spreech. Rather they are going to 'shape' speech in cooperation with their partner in crime, the state.
SO, they should pay a very hefty price for their deception.
We wish...
They should be forced for example to make it easy to all their members to use / interoperate with alternative platforms, and they should have to very prominantly display that they are fundamentally fascist.
Oh yes, that will happen when the state 'voluntary' abolishes itself. =)
Jailing people who publish information and images about the crimes of others, protects those who perpetrate the crimes, and hides those crimes from the public, feeding the ostrich syndrome of cucked loosers.
So without free speech, we protect criminals.
Anyway, I agree that some traffic can be classified as outright spam, like, say, advertising posted by bots, but blocking that sort of traffic is not really what's been discussed here.
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 16:56:04 -0800 Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
On 12/13/2016 03:21 PM, juan wrote:
Just look at arch-trolls like rayzer or quinn whining about trolls.
Show me anything anywhere that sounds like a Whine from me.
Oh sorry, yes, your comments on libertarianism are an example of the most exquisite Scientific Socialist Criticism, not 'whining'. And you are not trolling at this very moment.
I want to analyze your 'condition' from a distance. It's safer that way. Your spew is psychotic
Sure, so you are a jew-kristian commie who also believe in the psychiatric mafia. Haven't you moved to cuba yet razer? Comrade fidel or their heirs surely can give you a job as mamager of their concentration camp. You are a perfect match for the job.
and sociopathic.
Rr
On 12/13/2016 05:05 PM, juan wrote:
And you are not trolling at this very moment.
Nope. I asked a direct question (and explained why I was asking) I suspect there's a few people here waiting in an-tis-i-pation for your answer
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 16:56:04 -0800 Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
On 12/13/2016 03:21 PM, juan wrote:
Just look at arch-trolls like rayzer or quinn whining about trolls. Show me anything anywhere that sounds like a Whine from me.
Oh sorry, yes, your comments on libertarianism are an example of the most exquisite Scientific Socialist Criticism, not 'whining'.
And you are not trolling at this very moment.
I want to analyze your 'condition' from a distance. It's safer that way. Your spew is psychotic Sure, so you are a jew-kristian commie who also believe in the psychiatric mafia. Haven't you moved to cuba yet razer? Comrade fidel or their heirs surely can give you a job as mamager of their concentration camp. You are a perfect match for the job.
As anticipated.
and sociopathic.
Silence speaks volumes Juan Rr
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 18:19:03 -0800 Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
On 12/13/2016 05:05 PM, juan wrote:
And you are not trolling at this very moment.
Nope. I asked a direct question (and explained why I was asking)
Show me anything anywhere that sounds like a Whine from me
Just review your constant, retarded, antilibertarian rants, "troll". If you don't know how to browse the list's archive or your own out mailbox, that's not my problem. "Let it be known......Castro was a true hero."
On 12/13/2016 06:30 PM, juan wrote:
constant, retarded, antilibertarian rants
Not whining. Pointing shit out. (Pointing at you right now... << THIS is 'trolling' intentional insult intended to elicit spew) Rr
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 18:19:03 -0800 Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
On 12/13/2016 05:05 PM, juan wrote:
And you are not trolling at this very moment.
Nope. I asked a direct question (and explained why I was asking) Show me anything anywhere that sounds like a Whine from me
Just review your constant, retarded, antilibertarian rants, "troll". If you don't know how to browse the list's archive or your own out mailbox, that's not my problem.
"Let it be known......Castro was a true hero."
On 12/13/2016 11:13 AM, juan wrote:
I, unlike quinn, am not a statist nor I advocate censorship in a list devoted to cyber freedom.
Shitting typographical spirochete-infested diarrhea all over a list continually is an attempt at censorship by dissuading people from following or being involved in the threads. Troll. Rr
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 11:54:43 -0800 Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
On 12/13/2016 11:13 AM, juan wrote:
I, unlike quinn, am not a statist nor I advocate censorship in a list devoted to cyber freedom.
Shitting typographical spirochete-infested diarrhea all over a list continually is an attempt at censorship by dissuading people
You can't be that pathetic can you? I can post whatever I wan't. That doesn't prevent other people from posting whatever they want. Just look at your sick commie vomits. Nobody is materially preventing you from posting them. But I certainly see what your problem is rayzer. You want to be 'free' to claim that murderer commie fidel castro was a hero and you don't want people to rub it in your face that you are an anti-libertarian commie troll. Sniff sniff. It's so sad that the Cuban Commie Party doesn't control this list. They surely would have fixed your 'problem' a long time ago.
from following or being involved in the threads. Troll.
Rr
On 12/13/2016 12:07 PM, juan wrote:
I can post whatever I wan't.
Spoken like a two year old pouting. And what "whatever I wan't" is ...
Shitting typographical spirochete-infested diarrhea all over a list continually is an attempt at censorship by dissuading people from following or being involved in the threads. Troll.
Xos and suck my cuck Rr
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 11:54:43 -0800 Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
On 12/13/2016 11:13 AM, juan wrote:
I, unlike quinn, am not a statist nor I advocate censorship in a list devoted to cyber freedom.
Shitting typographical spirochete-infested diarrhea all over a list continually is an attempt at censorship by dissuading people
You can't be that pathetic can you? I can post whatever I wan't. That doesn't prevent other people from posting whatever they want. Just look at your sick commie vomits. Nobody is materially preventing you from posting them.
But I certainly see what your problem is rayzer. You want to be 'free' to claim that murderer commie fidel castro was a hero and you don't want people to rub it in your face that you are an anti-libertarian commie troll.
Sniff sniff. It's so sad that the Cuban Commie Party doesn't control this list. They surely would have fixed your 'problem' a long time ago.
from following or being involved in the threads. Troll.
Rr
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 12:17:04 -0800 Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
On 12/13/2016 12:07 PM, juan wrote:
I can post whatever I wan't.
Spoken like a two year old pouting.
Go to cuba scumbag. That's where you belong. Running a concentration camp. No doubt there's lots of free speech in cuba. Your kind of free speech. But I'm sure you love the cheap stuff that the biggest fascist economy on the planet provides eh. Enjoy your cheap gas. You get it by murdering brown children. " Let it be known......Castro was a true hero."
And what "whatever I wan't" is ...
Shitting typographical spirochete-infested diarrhea all over a list continually is an attempt at censorship by dissuading people from following or being involved in the threads. Troll.
Xos and suck my cuck
Rr
On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 11:54:43 -0800 Razer <rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
On 12/13/2016 11:13 AM, juan wrote:
I, unlike quinn, am not a statist nor I advocate censorship in a list devoted to cyber freedom.
Shitting typographical spirochete-infested diarrhea all over a list continually is an attempt at censorship by dissuading people
You can't be that pathetic can you? I can post whatever I wan't. That doesn't prevent other people from posting whatever they want. Just look at your sick commie vomits. Nobody is materially preventing you from posting them.
But I certainly see what your problem is rayzer. You want to be 'free' to claim that murderer commie fidel castro was a hero and you don't want people to rub it in your face that you are an anti-libertarian commie troll.
Sniff sniff. It's so sad that the Cuban Commie Party doesn't control this list. They surely would have fixed your 'problem' a long time ago.
from following or being involved in the threads. Troll.
Rr
On 12/13/2016 12:22 PM, juan wrote:
Go to cuba scumbag
You're really hung on that 'Cuba" thing. Did you have the hots for a certain cigar-smoking guy and he jilted you or fucked-and-forgot you so you moved to Argentina to live with a bunch of 90 year old Nazis? Is that it bubbala? Is that why you're sooooooo mean? Rr
participants (9)
-
Cecilia Tanaka -
grarpamp -
John Newman -
juan -
Mirimir -
oshwm -
Razer -
Shawn K. Quinn -
Zenaan Harkness