censored with Perry

Enzo Michelangeli writes:

>In any case, before Perry (rightly) send us stern reminders of the scarce
>crypto relevance of this thread, let's take it out of Cypherpunks and,
>if someone is interested, let's continue by e-mail.

   Perry is again narrowly defining allowable speech on Cypherpunks.
Encryption becomes a trivial topic if its best medium is taken by the
States. Perry is still in his "only encryption algorithms in C is a
proper topic for Cypherpunks" mode. This is a direction that if followed
would take the vitality and relevance out of the Cypherpunks list. Perry
does a disservice for Cypherpunks.

   Since when did Cypherpunks become the mailing list fit for Perry? Perry
makes a big deal out of "nobody speaks for Perry" yet on Cypherpunks he
has decided that he sets the parameters for allowed speech. When did Perry
come to own the list? Where did he get this "authority" to tell other
Cypherpunks to shut up? As Perry often presumptiously and rudely reminds
C'punks that their speech is not tolerable, we must also take the time
and trouble to occasionally tell Perry to shove his opinions up his ass.

                                                         Gary Jeffers


Enzo Michelangeli writes:
> In any case, before Perry (rightly) send us stern reminders of the scarce
> crypto relevance of this thread, let's take it out of Cypherpunks 

Gary Jeffers writes:
>    Perry is again narrowly defining allowable speech on Cypherpunks.

Since Perry hasn't said a damn thing about this Hong Kong ISP thread on the 
list, I suggest that you're wasting your time chasing around a hypothetical
situation.  

-Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>	Me speak for Perry ?
        "It just couldn't be, and only a fool would say that" -Steely Dan, 1972

Gary Jeffers writes:
> Enzo Michelangeli writes:
> 
> >In any case, before Perry (rightly) send us stern reminders of the scarce
> >crypto relevance of this thread, let's take it out of Cypherpunks and,
> >if someone is interested, let's continue by e-mail.
> 
>    Perry is again narrowly defining allowable speech on Cypherpunks.
> Encryption becomes a trivial topic if its best medium is taken by the
> States. Perry is still in his "only encryption algorithms in C is a
> proper topic for Cypherpunks" mode.

No, I don't think that, Mr. Jeffers, but I must admit that my opinion
is that random political crap (NOT careful announcements by the likes
of jya@pipeline.com of reprints of articles on the new FBI wiretap
garbage) doesn't belong. 

> This is a direction that if followed
> would take the vitality and relevance out of the Cypherpunks list. Perry
> does a disservice for Cypherpunks.

I'm sorry, but you do a disservice to the cause of freedom. People are
trying to get work done to actually get cryptographic systems written,
deployed, and popularized, and the sort of crap that fills this place
periodically prevents people from working together towards that
end. If you want to talk about politics, go to Libernet or some such. 

Tim May will doubtless disagree, but he has nothing else to do in life
than read the net so his incentives to see traffic minimized aren't
the same as other people's.

>    Since when did Cypherpunks become the mailing list fit for Perry?

Look, its simple. If you want the FBI and NSA to win, post lots of
crap here. Nothing will help them out more than clogging one of the
few communications channels available to people interested in
spreading cryptography. If you are really successful, all the smart
people will leave (as has happened in waves before -- the losses of
Steve Bellovin and (effectively) Phil Karn are still felt) and you
will have totally destroyed the channel.

> we must also take the time and trouble to occasionally tell Perry to
> shove his opinions up his ass.

If you want the anti-crypto people to win, nothing can help nearly so
much as your attitude. I'm glad to see what side you are on.

Perry

On Fri, 3 Nov 1995, Gary Jeffers wrote:

>    Perry is again narrowly defining allowable speech on Cypherpunks.

Killfiles exist. Judging by the amount of ranting, raving, paranoia and 
please help!!! posts, isn't it inevitable that you'll get get some shut up
posts too? They make for entertaining flamewars (remember "my operating 
system is better than yours!!"? groan ). The frequency of [noise] postings 
might even be considered a decent PRNG.

Shut up shutting up ;->