Personal attacks etc (was Re: USA: National Security Strategy...)

[juan]

On Mon, 1 Jan 2018 23:07:57 -0600
"Shawn K. Quinn" <skquinn at rushpost.com> wrote:

> the objections to moderating this list (note: NOT censoring, moderating)

	oh shill k quinn is back! Hey mr shill, it would be nice if you
	had something like 1% intellectual honesty and  admited that
	you are an advocate of CENSORSHIP who doesn't even have the
	balls to call it CENSORSHIP and instead uses the hypocritical,
	euphemistical and just fraudulent term 'moderation'.

	But you see, it doesn't matter if you refer to CENSORSHIP as
	'moderation' because it still is CENSORSHIP.

	Just like when you americans murder brown children for fun and
	profit and call it collateral murder, I mean, damage. 


> there's almost no point to having the list if it's not
> going to stay on a defined topic and if we as a community have no
> power to deal with those who habitually behave as anthropomorphic
> uncaged animals.
> 
> If the "cypherpunks" banner is to mean anything, then we need to take
> it back from those who are using it as an excuse to be racists,
> homophobes, thieves, and liars.

	thieves and liars? Are you talking about your pals and tax
	parasites  at the tor project? They are feminazis too! Really a
	monument to American Virtue.



> As someone who is today a citizen of
> good character, I feel I should be able to call myself a cypherpunk

	Tell us oh Great Master Philospher Shill Quinn, how does an
	STATIST and CENSOR (like you) become a cypherpunk? 

	How do anonimity, free speech and anarchy relate to your love
	for CENSORSHIP and GOVERNMENT TYRANNY? 



> and maintain my membership here without risk of associating myself
> with those who engage in such putrid and/or criminal conduct as I
> have enumerated above. I believe a true cypherpunk is of good
> character (including honesty and a respect for basic standards of
> decency) and disown those who use the "cypherpunks" banner and
> mailing list to partake of and further conduct to the contrary.
> 
> I'm no fan of personal attacks, and I can see how overt sexual content
> would be at least nominally off-topic, but those two things rank among
> the very least of our problems.
>