Anonymous Posting

[Faustine]

anonymous wrote:

>Yes, one would expect all sorts of trash, but for some reason that's
>not happening right now.

This thread certainly passed my threshold of being interesting enough to 
reply to, but it's atypical. 

If I have a low opinion of the kinds of anonymous interactions I've had in 
the past and would rather skip people who don't have anything to say, it 
means I either have to wade through stuff that wastes my time or miss out 
reading posts like yours. I don't think that's a terribly effective way to 
organize a list or have discussions. 


> 2) I used the earlier Cypherpunks remailers in their first month of
> operation, in 1992. More to the point, I architected the basic
> features remailers should have at the first Cypherpunks
> meeting. Check the archives if you doubt this.

>Actually, I consider the Great Timothy May to be beyond my judgment.
>(No irony intended.)

Just thought I'd point out that if someone is beyond your judgment, it 
means you're operating on faith. Question everyone; get a spine. Why isn't 
this obvious?


>In general, however, it's hard to understand why people who claim to
>be cypherpunks won't use remailers or even encrypted mail.  The "I
>only use these tools when I'm committing felonies" model is flawed.

You have zero reason to think you have the faintest idea who here uses 
remailers and encryption when, why, for what, to whom, and under what 
circumstances based on whether or not they use it posting to a mailing 
list. It's a hell of a presumption on your part. Furthermore, it's 
ridiculous to try to dictate how people should conduct their affairs. For 
what it's worth, technically speaking, Hushmail and Cotse ARE encrypted 
remailers, just psuedoanonymous ones.  


>If people were saying they are not interested in these tools or
>technologies, then there's no issue.  But what I don't understand is
>people claiming this stuff is interesting but then not even using it.

Re-read my posts on this carefully and see if you still think that's a good 
characterization of what I said.


>Even worse, many actually disparage those using encryption or
>remailers and yet remain subscribed to this list.  Strange.

Elementary logic: disparaging people who happen to use encryption and 
remailers is neither equivalent to disparaging the use of encryption and 
remailers nor equivalant to disparaging people because they happen to use 
encryption and remailers.


>(If there was more noise coming from remailers I'd probably sign posts
>so filtering would be feasible.  Hopefully, I'd be filtered in!)

If this is what you normally sound like, I wouldn't filter you out. It's 
not that I disagree with you that much, you're mainly just misunderstanding 
me. But if you're one of the anonymouses who won't sign your name to 
insults and baseless accusations? Well, I'd say you'd be better off the way 
you are. Just dont expect me to waste time reading it.

~Faustine.