A Brevital Moment (was..Ignore Aimee Farr)

Ernest Hua ernest at luminous.com
Thu Sep 13 22:00:06 PDT 2001


Well said ... and I would imagine that May and Co. have very logical,
reasonable and laudible goals.  The problem here, is that the
moderates on the list does not want to be defined by the extremes.

(I am quite certain there will be some flaming to follow, as the
indignations let loose.)

The one question I would ask those who spout "XXX needs killing" is
whether you really want to make a difference or just stand up for an
isolated principle?

You just might be right, but maybe no one noticed, and the ignorant
masses (a.k.a. sheeples) just walked right over you (and your rights)
anyway.

Even in your world, it is not acceptable to point a gun at someone
and demand that they act with reason or even enlightened self interest.

Ernest (dusting off my flame proof vest) Hua

-----Original Message-----
From: Aimee Farr [mailto:aimee.farr at pobox.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 6:26 PM
To: citizenQ
Cc: cypherpunks at lne.com
Subject: A Brevital Moment (was..Ignore Aimee Farr)

Mr. Ziplip wrote:

> Tim -
>
> Behavioral psychologists will tell you that the best way to
> extinguish an undesirable behavior is to IGNORE it.
>
> If Farr's posturings and baitings are truly to be made
> ineffective, the best course of action amongst the cpunks who
> care is to killfile the postings and refuse to engage on ANY level.

My post was not "bait." The reason we have anything left of the amendments
so frequently talked about in here is due to the independence of the
judiciary. While you can question aforesaid independence, threatening the
judiciary is beyond the pale.

There are some posts in here that give me 'pause for psycholinguistic
analysis.' As such, I worry that they could be misconstrued (Type 5...Type
6, compulsive or possible syndicate bombers even...) by some hypersensitive,
uneducated people not intimately familiar with the history and quirks of
this list -- in what has become a hypersensitive environment.

Bell's "Assassination Politics" put cypherpunks on some protective
intelligence agendas. It would not be implausible to assume you were being
monitored to see if you "run" with the seeded assassination memes, if only
for analytical purposes. These matters are taken seriously by those charged
with the care of protected persons. (Contrary to what some here would have
you believe, subtlety can get you a much higher threat-rating than overtly
threatening correspondence.)

> Rising to the bait, debating whether such-and-such a purpose is
> behind Farr's postings, speculating on Farr's true intent, all
> this does is spur on the postings, the baiting, the provocation.
> Just say "no" to responding to ANY of Farr's postings, and I
> would almost put money that the behavior will extinguish within a week.

Baiting? Provocation? No, a caveat. Do not tolerate behavior of that nature.
It subjects you all to scrutiny and mischaracterization.

What about Mr. K-S that hides behind his hushmail jacket and asks for names
and addresses.....why doesn't somebody cuss him out?

~Aimee





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list