Cypherpricks think they're cool

>Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 01:01-EST
>From: Marc.Ringuette@GS80.SP.CS.CMU.EDU
>To: cypherpunks@toad.com
>Subject: Cypherpunks know they're cool
>
>Hey, man, we're the cypherpunks.  We're too hip to worry about a 
>trivial little mail bomb.  But if we did get upset...well, who
>do you think has the bigger arsenal of dirty tricks, him or us?

>Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 21:41:04 -0800
>To: cypherpunks@toad.com
>From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
>Subject: HABRECHT=EMAIL HARASSEMENT
>
>P.S. What I did was to _reply_ to Mr. Habrecht, explaining the situation. I
>attached my reply to a *quoted copy* of his message AND MAILED IT BACK TO
>HIM! (Actually, my mailer splits incoming messages into 24 KB pieces, so I
>only mailed one of these back to him....he got off lucky. If several more
>people do this, he'll think twice about mail-bambing a list again.)


What arrogant little pricks you are, Mr. Ringuette and Mr. May! So is this
what cypherpunks is really all about: "dirty tricks", "mail bombs", endless
harassment of people on the net who simply wish to be left alone? I had
originally thought that cypherpunks had higher objectives in mind than
that, but evidently at least some of you simply fancy yourselves as some
sort of cyber-terrorists (although you're really no better than petty
vandals).

I've seen many of you raise issues about responsibility on the net. Is
proving that you have a "bigger arsenal of dirty tricks" you're idea of
responsibility? And do you really think that cypherpunks could survive such
a war? You yourselves have admitted that you have many enemies in your
quest for net privacy and anonymity. Do you foolishly believe that they
won't seize upon this irresponsible behavior on your part and use it to
prove their point? You will only succeed in bringing about precisely what
you claim to oppose: oppressive controls on the internet to stop petty
vandals like yourself.

I would hope that there are some among you that have some scrap of sanity
left, and realize that there is nothing to be gained from bringing a
needless war down upon yourselves. Wise up!

From tcmay:
>I don't know what the delay has been in unsubscribing people. As always,
>send requests to the list maintenance address,
>"cypherpunks-request@toad.com". The list manager, Eric Hughes
>(hughes@soda.berkelely.edu), has been away at the CFP conference this
>week...perhaps this is part of the delay.

I sent one request to cypherpunks-request about three weeks ago, and a
second about a week ago. Was Eric Hughes at the CFP conference then? And
you may have noticed that a third person has now stepped forward and
expressed frustration over being in the same predicament. Do you still want
to pretend there is no problem? What will it take for you to realize there
is: the third person, the fourth, fixth, sixth? I'll say it again: Wise up!


I've been very patient over this, but I'm disgusted at your arrogant
promises of "dirty tricks" and "mail bombs" against those who simply want
to unsubscribe from the list! What phenomenal assholes you are!!!

-----
Michael Brennan      - mbrennan@netcom.com

#FLAME ON

Michael Brennan writes:
 > >Hey, man, we're the cypherpunks.  We're too hip to worry about a
 > >trivial little mail bomb.  But if we did get upset...well, who
 > >do you think has the bigger arsenal of dirty tricks, him or us?
 >
 > What arrogant little pricks you are, Mr. Ringuette and Mr. May! So is this
 > what cypherpunks is really all about: "dirty tricks", "mail bombs", endless
 > harassment of people on the net who simply wish to be left alone?.........
 >
 > I've seen many of you raise issues about responsibility on the net. Is
 > proving that you have a "bigger arsenal of dirty tricks" you're idea of
 > responsibility? And do you really think that cypherpunks could survive such
 > a war? You yourselves have admitted that you have many enemies in your
 > quest for net privacy and anonymity. Do you foolishly believe that they
 > won't seize upon this irresponsible behavior on your part and use it to
 > prove their point? You will only succeed in bringing about precisely what
 > you claim to oppose: oppressive controls on the internet to stop petty
 > vandals like yourself.

I symphatize for poor Mr. Habrecht being unable to get off this list.
Does it mean, that he, in his frustration bombing my mailbox, is
"justified"?  Hey, it's not me, who signed himon to this list,
it's not me, who can throw him out! So why did he choose to
shoot from the hip at innocent bystanders? By the same
logic, if one feels he was treated unjustly
anywhere - just make a bomb and blow up
the highest building in your area
with the largest amount of
people in it. What a real
responsible bastard can
do such things...

And who's talking about responsibility?!
An "e-mail terrorist"? Ha!

Can cypherpunks survive the "war"? With who? Lighten up!

Spitting saliva and terms like "petty vandals"? Well, well...
Who was that idiot, who vandalized my mailbox with his
stupid 3K lines of excrements? That's what true
"vandalism" is, in my eyes... Oh, and if you
aren't satisfied with how car service in
your city works - get a gun and hunt
their passengers... What a man...

And the last - who the hell needs that privacy? Is it
something valuable for cypherpunks only, something
you don't really need for yourself? Just joined
this list out of kindness to help those poor
kids?

 > I would hope that there are some among you that have some scrap of sanity
 > left, and realize that there is nothing to be gained from bringing a
 > needless war down upon yourselves. Wise up!

Yeah. Always nice to have a peace defender...

 > I sent one request to cypherpunks-request about three weeks ago, and a
 > second about a week ago. Was Eric Hughes at the CFP conference then? And
 > you may have noticed that a third person has now stepped forward and
 > expressed frustration over being in the same predicament. Do you still want
 > to pretend there is no problem? What will it take for you to realize there
 > is: the third person, the fourth, fixth, sixth? I'll say it again: Wise up!

Well, list manager, are you there? Ain't this pure truth?
And as Mark pointed out, can it be managed AUTOMATICALLY?
Somebody out there, please?

 > I've been very patient over this, but I'm disgusted at your arrogant
 > promises of "dirty tricks" and "mail bombs" against those who simply
 > want to unsubscribe from the list!

Oh no! Seeing a terrorist attack, we should seek a reason for
that poor person to act this way, to justify his doings, and
to change our behaviour, because obviously, a person with
grievance isn't responsible, or liable for his
actions - we are!   Thus we shouldn't
threaten a "mail-bomber" with
response in kind, oh no!

Give me my wish, or ye all will suffer the consequenses!

 > What phenomenal assholes you are!!!

Sounds like you were looking at the mirror too much
recently (:-).

Uri.
------------
<Disclaimer>

Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1993 12:56:02 -0500
   From: uri@watson.ibm.com

   #FLAME ON

   [ Rest of flame deleted.]

What I don't understand is, why are people complaining?  We're just
seeing people exercise their sacred right to free speech..... all over
this mailing list.  After all, isn't this what you were working towards?

So now that this group is getting a taste of free speech, why do we see
people sending mail to system administrators, asking that certain people
be censured for sending messages to this mailing list?  Not too long
ago, people were saying that censuring people for their speech, even
after the fact, was tantamount to censorship!

It seems just a little hypocritical to me, given the strong and sprited
defense of anonymous remailers just a week or two ago.....

							- Ted