Whom, specifically, is our greatest ally? - (spoiler: Australia) - [PEACE]

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 12:49:22AM +0000, jim bell wrote:
>  On Sunday, November 3, 2019, 01:34:48 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:
>  
>  
>  >What I do when I'm unsure and want to check, is check the cp archives here:
> 
> >    https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/
> 
> >view by date, and look at the most recent emails.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, your response is (un-?)intentionally hilarious.  It
> wouldn't have been so a week ago, before I started exposing the
> most huge scandal of corruption tampering that Cypherpunks archives
> has ever seen, a massive fabrication of some of the CP archives, 
> Back then, there was at least the illusion that the CP archives had
> a minimal level of credibility.  

Jim, corruption and tampering of email archives from 1995, when you
were stalked and ultimately jailed for ~13 years pursuant to the
paper you wrote, which (per kindly and recently provided information)
involved, at the least, a grand jury,

  is not surprising.



> And here, above, you ask me to "check the CP archives".

Yes Jim, checking the official CP archives is basic due diligence if
an email you have recently sent, does not appear back to you as a
subscriber, via the CP list.

And yes, of course it is humorous in the face of your 1995 missing
emails :)


> Worse, you don't even bother to explain if you actually received

"don't even bother" implies I had the thought to do so, and
intentionally discarded that thought, which suggests you are speaking
to my intentions in relation to you.

In general, it is unwise to speak to the intentions of another.

Instead, speak specifically just to the actions of another, and
refrain from postulating their intentions - in this way, less folks
inclined to emotional reactivity, react emotionally thus causing the
discussion to descend into non constructive territory of ad homs,
defensiveness, baseless accusations etc.

It's not necessarily an easy rule to follow, but it does at least on
the surface appear a wise rule to attempt to follow...


> the first attempt of my morning email, a claim which at least in
> principle would have provided a bit of further indication whether
> my first attempt had actually succeeded, or had failed.   That is
> obviously the first, most immediate piece of information that you
> could have done.   
>
> And you didn't.  Remember what 'they' say, "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem".
>             Jim Bell
>