On 7/6/16 12:51 PM, juan wrote:

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 12:27:03 -0700
"Stephen D. Williams" [1]<sdw@lig.net> wrote:


On 6/30/16 1:10 PM, juan wrote:

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 12:33:22 -0700
"Stephen D. Williams" [2]<sdw@lig.net> wrote:



 In the unlikely
event that we elect Trump,

        He is unlikely to be elected because he's marginally better
        than that murderours cunt, your boss hitlery.

Not sure why a sexist slur makes any difference.

        "sexist"? The fuck are you taling about? Oh wait. I guess that
        pandering to feminazi cunts is your way to try to get laid?
        Sad.

   Perhaps you were using the UK definition of 'cunt', although that usage
   is, I think, often as an endearment, much like 'bastard' or 'dude' in
   the US.  In some locales, it's almost always used in a sexist sense.
   Anyway, your stooping to ad hominem attacks means you've already lost
   the argument.
   I was on BBSs in 1982, Compuserve in 1984, UUCP/Usenet in 1987 (a
   couple hops from uvax), running a server on the Internet continuously
   since 1992, setting up a couple ISPs including a satellite link in the
   early 90's, on AOL in 1995 (I wrote BuddyList for AOL.), and various
   other things.  Calling me names on the Internet is not going to phase
   me.


 Murderous?  Are all
US leaders, in general, murderous


        Of course.

   Well, no wonder.  So, if you were President of the US, what would you
   do differently?  How would that work better?

        Now tell me Stephen, what does an establishment bot like you do
        in an allegedly crypto ANARCHIST mailing list?

   Define 'anarchist' and 'crypto-anarchist', think a little, and you may
   find some answers.
   Let's go with the Wikipedia definition:

   Crypto-anarchists employ [3]cryptographicsoftware to evade prosecution
   and harassment while sending and receiving information over [4]computer
   networks, in an effort to protect their [5]privacy and [6]political
   freedom.
   From that, you can derive a number of reasons to support and/or be
   aware of and/or use the techniques from cypherpunks.  For instance, you
   could look at the US as being largely based on free-speech-anarchism,
   as per the First Amendment.  Based on that, and perhaps borrowing from
   the Second, Fourth Amendments and other sources, you could easily
   justify an effort like cypherpunks.  In the 90's, Cypherpunks,
   individually and as a whole, were super important to avoid things going
   the wrong way in the US.  It was important for clear-headed arguments
   to be made, legal and other challenges mounted in just the right way,
   and education and code spread widely and evolved quickly.  Paranoid
   babble would not have helped, and is still not helping.
   Understanding the "establishment" doesn't mean being "their" bot.  Your
   lack of understanding and/or irrational distrust doesn't make you an
   anarchist; it shows your ignorance.
   "You don't know your own argument unless you know your opponent's." -
   anon (I think.)  You can't even understand who your opponent is unless
   you understand all sides as much as possible.

        I can counter your sick garbage/propaganda, but I'm
        curious why you post it here...?

   Quite a weak and lazy response; you obviously have nothing but
   bluster.  If you can't back up your statements with evidence, you
   aren't really saying anything useful.  Plonk.
   I think I've probably been "here" much longer than you have.  I was
   learning and participating since fairly early, and continuously for
   quite a few years.  For instance:
   [7]http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1995/02/msg00141.html
   sdw

References

   1. mailto:sdw@lig.net
   2. mailto:sdw@lig.net
   3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptography
   4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_network
   5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy
   6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_(political)
   7. http://cypherpunks.venona.com/date/1995/02/msg00141.html