I asked this scumbag boyce if he worked for tor (that is the pentagon) and the sorry shitbag denied it =) What a dumb piece of shit he is, and a coward to boot =)

On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 17:20:07 -0400 Griffin Boyce wrote:

juan wrote:

...

I asked this scumbag boyce if he worked for tor (that is the pentagon) and the sorry shitbag denied it =)

What a dumb piece of shit he is, and a coward to boot =)

I don't work for Tor,

dude, you are the shitbag who does mailing list censorship for them (free of charge or not, it's irrelevant), hence you work for tor, hence for the pentagon.

nor do I work for the Pentagon. But hey believe what you want ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hi again, Boyce. I will re-subscribe and be on topic now. You can moderate my messages to be sure I will be strictly on topic, if you want. I am humbly asking to return because there are some interesting subjects there, about Tor Project in general. Sorry for being deeply sincere, but mentioning "ludicrous rape apologetics" makes really clear your beliefs and preferences. Hope to be accepted again. Cecilia On Jun 22, 2016 6:23 PM, "Cecilia Tanaka" wrote:

Boyce,

I asked to Roger about the tor-talk moderation rules weeks ago and did not receive any answer. I can send the message in private to you, if you don't believe.

** I was already raped twice and I do have deep physical and emotional scars. Do you really think I loved my experiences and I deserve to be called "ludicrous rape apologetics"? **

I was talking about truth and lies, about judgements without proofs. I was a real victim in the past, I didn't tell lies. I know in my own burned skin what is being a victim of rape. Please, you can offend my intelligence, but it is really injust and pretty sick to call me "rape apologetics".

I bet you will leave ja.group post lies in tor-talk list, Boyce. How about being *fair*, please? I can create a fake account just for reading tor-talk list, but I prefer to use my own name and be transparent, expose myself when talking about lies. So, the ja.group or any person can contact me if they really want to talk about the truth.

Thanks for the answer, but you were unfair and really disgusting.

Cecilia On Jun 22, 2016 6:03 PM, "Griffin Boyce" wrote:

...

Cecilia Tanaka wrote:

...

Boyce, please, just pro-Jake people were banned or it was just a lovely coincidence? How about a bit of transparency, please?

Hello Cecilia,

This is the relevant thread on tor-project: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-project/2016-June/000459.html

As you can see, the emphasis is on off-topic posts and not the members' personal beliefs. Though having my inbox overrun with more than 300 messages filled with the most ludicrous rape apologetics was certainly a factor in my decision to ask for the ability to remove subscribers.

juan wrote:

...

...

I'm obviously re-subscribing right now. The fuck is wrong

...

with you.

You're banned. Go elsewhere.

so you work for the department of defense, eh shitbag? Too stupid and coward to even admit it =)

Senpai isn't going to notice you bro.

On Jun 22, 2016 7:16 PM, "juan" wrote:

Wow. Are you begging those shitbags, and promising to be an

obedient sheep? Disgusting. I don't know Boyce, Juan. He certainly doesn't know me too. Also you, my dear. I have no much pride. I don't care about "begging", if the reasons are important for me and other persons. I want to learn more about Tor Project and I want to do it using my real name and this personal account, because I use it for mailing and discussion lists. I have lots of accounts, but this is the public one, the less important account. I hate moderation, but I was and I am moderator in several lists, because I am considered transparent and everybody can contact me easily, Juan. My personal convictions about avoiding moderation at any cost, in a recent past, had a really negative impact in one of the lists that I used to moderate. A poisounous guy made a real chaos in the discuss list. It was a disaster because I knowed him in person and everybody knows I really liked him a lot. I wrote several advertising messages before put him in moderated mode. I never banned a person and he was the only person that I put under moderation until now. After being advertised about the moderation, he left a much more than 2.000 persons list, who always said "love too much", and offended me in several personal channels, including cell phone and messengers. I received dozens of cruel messages telling about my friends' impressions about me. After his disgusting messages for me, I was completely sure that I was right choosing to moderate him and his destructive e-mails. I was protecting the readers of the list, Juan. It was a proof of consideration and respect, not censure. A moderator can be an injust person and I already was victim of it several times, but the moderator role in all the lists is protecting them and their members. I am a moderator and already was under moderation. I know both positions. If you want, I can send all the references in private. You will discover that I know censure and harassment in a very intimate way, Juan. Lots of lovely traums to haunt me all the nights, my dear... Cecilia

On Jun 22, 2016 8:39 PM, "juan" wrote:

Your absurd and duplicious apology for censorship, hypocritically

dubbed 'moderation', has been duly noted.

Yeah, you censor people in other to protect your poor

retarded audience. Touching. No, they were not my audience at all. My ego never was not so pretentious. They were people trying to learn more about programming, electronics, security, better ways of buying components, even living in a corrupt country, full of injust imposts and taxes... A little about everything, Juan. Some of us talked about phylosophy, History, poetry... And all of the group asked to moderate that guy. It was not my decision. Democracy, my dear. I was just one of the moderation team, the only woman, and my work was avoing spammers and disasters. The difference was that I was knowed as moderator in public for being easily contacted for all the members of the list. The rest of the moderator team wanted to avoid problems in their inboxes. They were wiser than me and really coward in one person' specific case. Sorry, Juan, I really don't care if you likes me or not. It won't change my life or my personal convictions. Cecilia

Those who didn't betray Appelbaum are now banned? Those who ask questions and/or dig deeper that the average sheeple are now censored by the "ANTIcensorship" project/software? And the excuse is so touching.... "ludicrous rape apologetics" and "offtopic discussions". Juan are there any words than can describe such an ugly, cowardly and idiotic behavior? I can't find in my vocabulary. Nor english and nor russian.

On Thu, 2016-06-23 at 22:38 +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

I don't know Alex, but I do know this: I have an expectation (recently dashed to smithereens) that a project such as Tor Inc, promoting "freedom of speech, whistleblowing and more", should facilitate at least ONE public communication forum (email list) which list has a strong guarantee of freedom of speech, even though most or all other lists may be considered semi or fully private club lists (only excepting the laws which bind that corporation in its jurisdiction - a corporation obviously cannot fail to censor illegal "speech" in its home jurisdiction).

I am all for freedom of speech, but a list started for a specific purpose becomes useless if most, or even many, of the posts are off-topic. The tor-talk list (which I do not subscribe to) was started for a specific purpose, and allowing the continued posting of off-topic garbage defeats the whole purpose of having such a list. I don't work for the US military or US government, but I support the TOr Project's and Graham Boyce's efforts to restore order to the list in principle. Those who have threatened to rejoin the list under other identities have committed a despicable and reprehensible act and deserve the ban from the forum they have received. I will admit that sometimes our governments in the US sometimes get it wrong when passing laws. We as a nation have learned from our mistakes and the history of the laws reflect this. To infiltrate an e-mail list originated from private computer systems with off-topic posts, and then to threaten to continue doing so despite being banned from that list is against the law in most states and I believe violates Federal law as well. It is the right of the Tor Project and the people behind it to refuse to re-publish off-topic messages. To that effect, I support the Tor Project taking legal action against any such offenders if that becomes necessary. Before anyone even asks, my beliefs are the same regardless of whether or not Jacob Applebaum is guilty of what he has been accused of. (I do consider it noteworthy that so far such accusations have only been made in the court of public opinion, not in any court of law.) -- Shawn K. Quinn

On Fri, 2016-06-24 at 00:08 +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

I don't know who you're referring to - I've seen no threats to rejoin,

Graham Boyce alluded to it in one of his messages.

but I did see Cecilia respectful (if painfully submissive) request to be allowed to rejoin under her own provisio then she keep herself "on-topic". It seems evident she cannot even contact Boyce since he has kill filed her.

His inbox, his rules.

Would you agree that users who are about to be banned, ought be given, say, AT LEAST ONE CHANCE to comply with a request to "stop posting off topic, if you continue we will ban you"?

Tor Project's mailing list, Tor Project's rules. That said, I am inclined to be nice and warn first. However, I feel no obligation to do so, particularly if a disruptive participant knows he/she is being disruptive and/or posting off-topic on purpose.

Wow. You're really hard core here. Intended or not by you, you are coming across to me as pretty hard core fascist. If not intended, I grant you may just be modern-classicly schooled.

The US, its states and cities, and for that matter most of the civilized world, is run by laws. Yes, sometimes the people that make those laws get it wrong, but I believe at least with the laws regarding harassment and unauthorized computer system access, they got it right. That said, one should not need to read a law book or a holy book to know how to behave as a member of decent society. Threatening to rejoin a mailing list one has just been booted from, is not how decent people behave. -- Shawn K. Quinn

PS: - Quinn contacted me in private and he was not talking about me. Sorry again, Quinn! :P I asked him to apologize me and I was sincere, but I still think that using a Federal Court to judge a person trying to read a list and not using the same courts to judge persons who created that site is really bizarre. Here, the ja.group would be judged for three different crimes against (a person's) honor, at least. They and the Tor Project would spend a considerable amount of money paying civil and criminal indenizations. Being sincere, I really don't know who tried to re-subscribe using another account or if it was just another lie. You all know, everybody in the Tor Project loves "alleged victims" that never show proofs, hihi... ;) In private, some people said they didn't try subscribe again. I swear I did not, so I don't know if someone really tried to subscribe using threats or not. Juan and I had some private conversation yesterday night about moderation and I think he understands me better now. He doesn't agree, but now understands my points and my jokes about being a veggie girl, hihi... ;) The world is becoming pretty boring in some moments, uff... :-/

On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:26:52 -0300 Cecilia Tanaka wrote:

Quinn,

Sorry, I respect neurotic people, it was pretty stupid, wow! Federal court? Hahaha!!! I do love North-American ego trips, hahaha!!! :D

The guy is either out of his fucking mind, or royally trolling us.

At least, a trial would be much more interesting and fun than another rape, yay!!! :D

+1 for dark humour

On 06/23/2016 10:40 AM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:

...

We as a nation have learned from our mistakes and..

Juan responded:

Again either that's sarcasm, or I'm - almost - speechless.

No... I do believe he's serious... I'd agree you know. For instance our nation learned that wars to hold ground are a waste of manpower delivering to many unsightly corpses to Dover AFB... So why 'go there' when we can get some vicious freak proxies like the Saudis or Kenya and Ethiopia (CIA Somalia war now handed off to Africom and proxies) to do our dirt for us? Rr

2016-06-23 20:47 GMT+03:00 juan :

Juan, are there any words that can describe such an ugly, cowardly and

...

idiotic behavior? I can't find in my vocabulary. Nor english and nor russian.

*I have one word for it : American =)*

There are totalitarians everywhere of course. *But totalitarians pretending to be the moral rulers of the universe? *Only Americans can do that.

+1!, my friend! Thanks for solving this enigma :D

On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 22:27:46 +1000 Zenaan Harkness wrote:

There is room in the world for private or semi-private clubs where the democracy of the club prevails. The benefit of this over capital-D democracy, as Juan has succinctly pointed out wrt the Debian example, is that no one HAS to join that club. I don't HAVE to die for the cause of Debian, and on top of it, I can fork as much of the code and do with it as I want/ am able.

Yes, but Cecilia and I were talking about censorship in tor-talk. Although there may be parallels with linux distributions or private clubs, this case is purely a free speech case. Cecilia said 'moderation' (that is censorship) was almost always bad, but sometimes 'justified'(or something like that). Given the 'context' and as far as I'm concerned, Cecilia was saying that banning all the people that tor-fascists banned was 'justified' 'ok' or whatever. By the way, Cecilia's 'argument' is pretty much self-defeating. If censorship is OK 'sometimes', then she can't complain about being censored 'sometimes', like 'this' time.

Now, for foundations for robust broader "community"/ national "society", this is another matter entirely - we need fundamental human rights to be respected very strongly, for a strong society potential.

Yes.

We need the right to create and live "hard core free speech" forums, we need "the right to free and anonymous travel on the commons", we need these and more!

Yes.

And having strong foundations does not remove the right for small/ medium or large groups to form their own (semi) private clubs (if they're useful for you, healing for others, comforting for some, go for it, create as many private clubs as your heart desires).

"Strong public rights, is not contradictory to private clubs."

Well, if we had mechanisms for 'public' free speech then private censorship might be more tolerable. But right now we have the worst of both worlds. Public and private censorship. As to the so called tor-project, it is a 'public' project in more than one sense. It's funded by 'public'(stolen) money, it's 'open source', it can be used by anyone, and it's a MILITARY project of the US military, which happens to be invading and has military bases in tens of countries all over the world. All the people being attacked by the US military are an unwilling party to the United States Private Club.

Juan, I'd like your thoughts on this proposition.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 16:24:42 -0300 Cecilia Tanaka wrote:

On Jun 23, 2016 3:42 PM, "juan" wrote:

...

Cecilia said 'moderation' (that is censorship) was almost always

bad, but sometimes 'justified'(or something like that).

...

Given the 'context' and as far as I'm concerned, Cecilia was

saying that banning all the people that tor-fascists banned was 'justified' 'ok' or whatever.

Hey, I did not say it at all, hard headed Juan! :P

But it is their list and their rules, being unjust or not.

It's not their list, it's funded with stolen money. And even if it was their list, that doesn't give them any divine rule-making authority.

If they want to censor their list in a dishonest and stupid way, using bad excuses, they will lose credibility, respect and collaborators. Their problems, not mine.

That's true. The fact that they are now showing their true fascist colors is a good thing.

...

By the way, Cecilia's 'argument' is pretty much self-defeating.

If censorship is OK 'sometimes', then she can't complain about being censored 'sometimes', like 'this' time.

Sorry, I wanted to read the list

And you can read the list. https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/ You don't need to be subscribed to read it.

and don't care about following rules to do it, if necessary. Social rules, for example: - In the Summer, I really prefer to be nude all the time, but I use clothes or I will be arrested. :-/

Reading the tor-talk list is not possible because my personal positions are different? Ok, what could I wait of a guy who can't simply admiss that was stupid, limited and cruel for calling a raped woman, a "ludicrous rape apologetics".

I know it is a terrible bad karma, but I would love to graffitti these exact words in his house. So Boyce would be able to understand how heavy and offensive were his words.

boyce is just a left-wing fascist. It's now fashionable among left-wing fascists to pretend to care oh so much about women, while ignoring cases where women are actually hurt.

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 05:38:59PM -0300, Cecilia Tanaka wrote:

On Jun 23, 2016 4:38 PM, "juan" wrote:

...

And you can read the list.

https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/

You don't need to be subscribed to read it.

Thank you, my dear, but it is not the same thing. I want to be formaly subscribed and receive aaaall the lovely messages in my inbox. You know me enough to understand my personal position, Juan. :)

If the people behind ja.group are still subscribed, even after using two fake accounts to humilliate and harass a person, why can't I be subscribed too? :)

Some of the people behind the lynch mob already told their names and they are still in the tor-talk list. Only two fake accounts were banned. The real accounts are normally subscribed. Not fair, not reasonable. It says a lot about the moderation team's preferences.

If I had told lies using a fake account, my personal account would be still protected and subscribed. Instead, I decided to expose myself in an honest way and I am being punished for not using a fake account to defend Jake. You know, being sincere and transparent is not a valuable thing for hypocrite people.

Do you remember the jokes that I told about my personal convictions, Juan? I am millions of times more hard headed than you, my dear. Just wait, hihi! :)

Reminds me of a line from that movie earlier this year, Eddie The Eagle, where he lands off the ski jump without crashing for the first time (or at least, without dieing :) and his trainer (who got banned from the sport so many years prior for being arrogant 'but transparent') yells out "You did it! And we're a disgrace!!" So: You did it! You stood for honesty, spoke personally and transparently, drew out some more fascists, and crashed and burned, and (according to tor-project), we're a disgrace! Hey, I'll take Team Cecilia, Juan, Alex, Rayzer and the rest of cypherpunks ANY day. Might not be many people in this world who value freedom of speech, but at least a few...

...

boyce is just a left-wing fascist. It's now fashionable

among left-wing fascists to pretend to care oh so much about women, while ignoring cases where women are actually hurt.

Yeah, I confess I was waiting for formal excuses because he is pretending to be politically correct. I am pretty disappointed. He is a bad actor and not much smart.

This is one of the beautiful results (sometimes) of being "simple" (transparnet, open, honest, asking straightforward questions etc, even when some people will say "oh, how stupid you are - you got banned/ everybody knows the answer/ etc") - ahah, but some true human nature got shown, and others have a chance to see something they may be not saw before. That's a great service to other humans, so thanks y'all!

The lies about banned people using threats to subscribe again were stranger than his disgusting offenses about rape apology. Sick guy, really disturbing, eeck! :-/

Astoundingly messed up guy. I'm suspecting actually a fake guy, one of the ja.group women with a huge knot in her knickers - but that would be even more disturbing.

Well, hope he learns how to fake better with his friends of ja.group. It is pretty stupid, Juan, but I was trying to sing a bit of Bob Marley, hihi... ;)

Bad Boyce, bad Boyce, whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do when they come for you? Bad Boyce, bad Boyce, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do when they come for you?

Exodus! Bull shit of ja.people. They gone exposed their messed up tor group.

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 11:47:00PM -0300, juan wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 11:09:10 +1000 Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

Hey, I'll take Team Cecilia, Juan, Alex, Rayzer and the rest of cypherpunks ANY day. Might not be many people in this world who value freedom of speech, but at least a few...

Out of curiosity...How did the torbot rayzer get into that list...?

Also rayzer is not the only 'cypherpunk' pentagon bot. We have at least boyce, 'ted smith', that psycho quinn, out of the top of my head. Indeed, I'd bet a couple of cents that the amount of robotic 'tor supporters' here is as high as it is in tor-talk.

Because he's not asking for censorship of cypherpunks list - though I admit I might have missed that he actually is. For now "I don't recall" is my plea on this one :)

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 12:19:29AM -0300, juan wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 12:55:53 +1000 Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 11:47:00PM -0300, juan wrote:

...

On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 11:09:10 +1000 Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

Hey, I'll take Team Cecilia, Juan, Alex, Rayzer and the rest of cypherpunks ANY day. Might not be many people in this world who value freedom of speech, but at least a few...

Out of curiosity...How did the torbot rayzer get into that list...?

Also rayzer is not the only 'cypherpunk' pentagon bot. We have at least boyce, 'ted smith', that psycho quinn, out of the top of my head. Indeed, I'd bet a couple of cents that the amount of robotic 'tor supporters' here is as high as it is in tor-talk.

Because he's not asking for censorship of cypherpunks list

Nobody is doing that, at least not openly. But I'm quite sure that all the torbots I mentioned would love to censor this list as well.

here's scumbag rayzer cheering his comrade boyce, and cheering censorship of course

https://cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2016-June/013507.html

I did a double take on that too - I thought first "may be this is HTML email not translating bold into text format properly or something". I ended up reading it as follows:

...

Best of luck ASSCRACK. He's WAY too polite.

As in, Rayzer saying Boyce is an ASSCRACK, and not approving. Then of course the "He's WAY too polite" comment could come across as "if he were not so polite, he might not be seen as an ASSCRACK, and would be doing his job properly, as it is, he fucked up." But then my default "assume best intention" hat compels me to then assume that Rayzer is a little socially inept, probably as a result of vaccination damage causing a mild autism or something. But then, he has demonstrated more than adequate capacity for being not inept, and in fact quite intellectually incisive (if moronic in his views - doublethink indeed). It does seem to me has has failed to contemplate in depth on his schooling/ indoctrination - at the very least.i

Then again, rayzer is a retard who thinks appelbaum is being 'smeared' by the tor mafia and that the tor mafia is to be trusted...doublethink can go a long way...

...

- though I admit I might have missed that he actually is. For now "I don't recall" is my plea on this one :)

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 12:58:40AM -0300, juan wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2016 13:31:22 +1000 Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

...

here's scumbag rayzer cheering his comrade boyce, and cheering censorship of course

https://cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2016-June/013507.html

I did a double take on that too - I thought first "may be this is HTML email not translating bold into text format properly or something".

I ended up reading it as follows:

...

...

Best of luck ASSCRACK. He's WAY too polite.

As in, Rayzer saying Boyce is an ASSCRACK, and not approving.

rayzer can of course clear it up, but thing is, he is replying to this post :

https://cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/2016-June/013473.html

Notice that boyce's message (fowarded by me) ends with "best of luck"

And according to rayzer that should have been "best of luck asscrack" - boyce should have insulted me. But he didn't so rayzer thinks "he's way too polite".

Damn I'm slow. Sorry bout that :/ Hangs head in self humiliating shame... shuffles off as quietly as possibly conceivable... hoping no one notices he was even there in the first plac

On 06/23/2016 07:47 PM, juan wrote:

Also rayzer is not the only 'cypherpunk' pentagon bot.

http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Teaser "TeaserBots are usually anarchopunkz with nothing to do and lots of Dharma to work off. They cruise around looking for listmembers that haven't made interstellar contact yet and buzz them, meaning that they find some isolated listserv on the intertubz with very few on-topic people around, then post re:s to some poor unsuspecting soul whom no one's going to believe (Juan) and then strut up and down in front of their NSA-linked cams wearing silly antennas on their head and making beep beep noises like a computer with a stuck key" Rr

Juan certainly has Alzheimer or another kind of demency and loss of memory. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Cecilia Tanaka Date: Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 8:07 PM Subject: Re: Hi, Boyce! (was Fwd: tor-talk subscription update) To: cpunks Cc: "tor-talk-owner@lists.torproject.org" < tor-talk-owner@lists.torproject.org> On Jun 22, 2016 7:16 PM, "juan" wrote:

Wow. Are you begging those shitbags, and promising to be an

obedient sheep? Disgusting. I don't know Boyce, Juan. He certainly doesn't know me too. Also you, my dear. I have no much pride. I don't care about "begging", if the reasons are important for me and other persons. I want to learn more about Tor Project and I want to do it using my real name and this personal account, because I use it for mailing and discussion lists. I have lots of accounts, but this is the public one, the less important account. I hate moderation, but I was and I am moderator in several lists, because I am considered transparent and everybody can contact me easily, Juan. My personal convictions about avoiding moderation at any cost, in a recent past, had a really negative impact in one of the lists that I used to moderate. A poisounous guy made a real chaos in the discuss list. It was a disaster because I knowed him in person and everybody knows I really liked him a lot. I wrote several advertising messages before put him in moderated mode. I never banned a person and he was the only person that I put under moderation until now. After being advertised about the moderation, he left a much more than 2.000 persons list, who always said "love too much", and offended me in several personal channels, including cell phone and messengers. I received dozens of cruel messages telling about my friends' impressions about me. After his disgusting messages for me, I was completely sure that I was right choosing to moderate him and his destructive e-mails. I was protecting the readers of the list, Juan. It was a proof of consideration and respect, not censure. A moderator can be an injust person and I already was victim of it several times, but the moderator role in all the lists is protecting them and their members. I am a moderator and already was under moderation. I know both positions. If you want, I can send all the references in private. You will discover that I know censure and harassment in a very intimate way, Juan. Lots of lovely traums to haunt me all the nights, my dear... Cecilia

You are not indifferent and I really don't care about your opinion about me. So you think I am a "ludicrous rape apologetics". So what? Should I cry again? Sorry, I prefer not spending water and my time with a loser again. Get a life, dear. And if possible be raped. You will discover in person that it is really impossible to be a "ludicrous rape apologetics" after being raped. But you don't care about it. Your point was simply to humilliate a person in public. On Jun 23, 2016 4:40 AM, "danimoth" wrote:

On 22/06/16 at 06:23pm, Cecilia Tanaka wrote:

...

** I was already raped twice and I do have deep physical and emotional scars. Do you really think I loved my experiences and I deserve to be called "ludicrous rape apologetics"? **

Usually the right place to discuss these kind of things is in the courts. Not some technical mailing list, otherwise your claims are likely to be ignored, and you are likely to seem (even to my indifferent eyes) a "ludicrous rape apologetics".

D.

2016-06-23 14:09 GMT+03:00 Cecilia Tanaka :

All Jake's friends and supporters are being brutally harassed in last weeks.

It is absolutely lovely receiving messages talking about raping me when everybody says they are 'rape victims' and 'we need to avoid any kind of violence against women'.

Uff, it seems a bad and sick contraditory joke, really hypocrite... Why do the people forget that I am a woman when it is convenient? And I was a _real_ victim, I didn't tell lies using an anonymous site and my networking... :-/

The worst part about everything is feeling really lucky, because Jake is receiving messages talking about killing him. At least, I will be just raped and, of course, only for correct and fair persons.

Cecilia, STOP! Please STOP! Stop groveling. It's not about some f*cken ego i'm talking about with you, but a man/woman should have some self respect! Don't you get that they ENJOY your humiliation?! And IT IS a self-humiliation, most of the things you are writing here in the past 24 hours. And what for, Cecilia? They will "get it", say sorry and bring you back to the tor-list?! ! ____ Also you should understand that this BAN is not a personal decision by "x", but a collective decision by the pseudo leaders of the whole tor community. ____ I tried to subscribe to the Tor list (you know, this "anti-censorship" software list :D). Got a message that i am banned. censored. Like you, Juan, Zen and a few others. As i already said on the list a few days ago, what do you expect from scums (calling themselves the backbone of the "tor community"), that create slander and/or scums who believe in it at once -> thus BETRAYING Jacob Appelbaum = BETRAYING one of their Leaders and/or Friends?! And this betrayal is related to the 90% of the silent cowards of the tor community too. Those that "aboooove" the mud. Those who write nothing on this topic OR write political-correct shit. yeah. How convenient it is... viewing from the "safe" side when your brother/Leader is being brutally crucified, right? _____ O.k. So now, the great censors/pseudo leaders of the Tor community will stay with a. notorious bastards + b. cowardly sheeple, that never ask nor say inconvenient questions or things. (don't know whether "a" or "b" is more disgusting) This act of the "ban" (with such beautiful' causes) just proves one more time that we were right all the way. Jacob Appelbaum IS innocent. Ban us or not, f*ckers. . _____ Cecilia, send this message to Jacob, please. He must SEE (-> know and feel) that he is not alone in this ugly and unfair war against him!

Hey. Am 23.06.2016 15:14, schrieb Zenaan Harkness:

Cecilia, it is amazing to watch the intensity of this campaign - all ja.talk repostings to the tor-talk list were allowed, but your responses, which actually came from personal experience, have been used as grounds to completely ban you from tor-talk.

ja.talk was also removed: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-project/2016-June/000459.html felix

On 06/23/2016 03:15 AM, Yui Hirasawa wrote:

...

Though having my inbox overrun with more than 300 messages filled with the most ludicrous rape apologetics was certainly a factor in my decision to ask for the ability to remove subscribers. So people not wantint to lynch someone just because of baseless claims is now rape apology?

+1 I've yet to see ANY PROOF, or any authorities involved in this. ANY ORGANIZATION that had any evidence whatsoever that the claims against ioerror were true would INSTANTLY be in touch with the police etc. Especially (take note my favorite spread-cheeky asscrack Juan) if the org WAS affiliated with the federal gubmint