New list confirmation (Re: cpunks list relocation imminent

[Razer]

On 09/08/2016 07:03 PM, Mirimir wrote:


> 
> There are many lists out there for stuff that Александр and Zenaan are
> posting. It's not that cypherpunk is apolitical. Rather, it's that stuff
> which simply bashes one side or the other, but has no particular
> connection to crypto and its social/economic/political role/potential is
> just plainly off-topic.


I TRY to keep my political postings to, at least the Internet or
computing's connection to politics, state, society


It's not ez.

Rr



> On 09/08/2016 07:39 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:
>> On 09/05/2016 12:15 PM, Александр wrote:
>>> forwarding part of my private conversation to the whole list:
>>
>>> The new list is not the preferable solution, you know. It's the
>>> only thing we see right now, but... We should realize, that this
>>> splitting up will KILL the original list. It will kill the whole
>>> concept and the core idea of the Cypher-Punk list/movement.
>>
>>> The Snowden revelations and all the shit going on in the world in
>>> the last 10 years has brought us (people with brain & spirit) to a
>>> clear and unambiguous understanding that *"THE CYPHERPUNK
>>> LIST-CONCEPT MUST EVOLVE, -> THUS MUST BE CHANGED, BECOMING MUCH
>>> BROADER". *And the focus, as John Young wrote, cannot be on
>>> Apolitical (relatively) crypto-math-numbers only as it was
>>> before...
>>
>>> Times have irreversibly changed -> thus the issues for discussion
>>> must be much much *BROADER*.
>>
>> Well that's odd.  I wonder what it's about?  Splitting the list into
>> what?  Two with different themes?  One Moderated and one Unmoderated?
> 
> There are many lists out there for stuff that Александр and Zenaan are
> posting. It's not that cypherpunk is apolitical. Rather, it's that stuff
> which simply bashes one side or the other, but has no particular
> connection to crypto and its social/economic/political role/potential is
> just plainly off-topic.
> 
>> If the latter, that's a perilous course.  One sees a lot of "twin"
>> lists and such that are one sterile and stereotyped, the other totally
>> overrun with tards.  Because once upon a time, half or more of the
>> people on the original list who took an interest in keeping it alive
>> /without/ censorship bailed, and those who stayed behind were
>> gradually overwhelmed.
> 
> There's no need to do anything with the cypherpunks list. If people
> object to off-topic crap, they can say so. If people object to being
> criticized for posting off-topic crap, they can deal with it or leave.
> That's just how unmoderated lists work.
> 
>> When the means to eliminate a public voice by direct force are not
>> practicable, death by a thousand paper cuts may get the job done.
>> Splitting an online forum may be a decisive move in that direction, or
>> harmless and productive, depending the situation.  As someone already
>> pointed out, there is already a cryptography list, which seems to
>> provide more or less what any advocates for moderation could ask for.
>>
>> People have been talking about the CPunks list charter.  I have not
>> seen it.  What Sovereign signed it, and what powers does the Crown
>> delegate to us, for what tribute in return?  Just curious.
>>
>> Will post a message to this same thread that enlarges on "my" input to
>> the "public" conversation.
>>
>> Ⓐ
>>
>>
>>