5 expanded posts ยท every known parent and child
We just heard from another anonymous poster trying to destroy our rights to free speech. How long will the cypherpunks put up with this? -> See: Info-Sec Heaven at URL http://all.net/ Management Analytics - 216-686-0090 - PO Box 1480, Hudson, OH 44236
Fred Cohen writes: > > We just heard from another anonymous poster trying to destroy our rights > to free speech. How long will the cypherpunks put up with this? As Tim May has explained over and over again, "the cypherpunks" do not exist. Cypherpunks is a mailing list, not a society or club. "The cypherpunks" as a group can do nothing about what gets posted to this list except comment on it. BTW, it would be helpful if you would provide some context when you complain or comment about another posting. At the time I read your note, it was the only cypherpunks note in my mailbox. Perhaps I read some message earlier from the ECafe anonymous mailer but if so, it certainly wasn't remarkable enough to leave a lasting impression. Finally, it should be noted that the kind of messages you're posting lately are eerily reminiscent of Detweiler's mental deterioration just before he went off the deep end. In fact, the line "How long will the cypherpunks put up with this?" may be an exact quote. -- Jeff
> >As Tim May has explained over and over again, "the cypherpunks" do not >exist. Cypherpunks is a mailing list, not a society or club. >"The cypherpunks" as a group can do nothing about what gets posted to >this list except comment on it. there are various myths here that ought to be addressed. - if the cypherpunks are not really a group, then people wouldn't get upset what goes under the cypherpunk name. but in fact people flame hotly what others think is or is not a "legitimate" cypherpunk tactic or project or whatever. you can't have it both ways. either anyone is free to decide what a cypherpunk is, and no one has the right to argue with it. or, cypherpunks are something in particular, and someone has the authority to determine that. so far the "authorities" are those who have been on a the list a long time. (it is still an informal system however). this is a reasonable system. but I object to the way that people such as PM argue in one message that "there is no such thing as the cypherpunks" but then endlessly determine themselves what is appropriate for the list. doesn't anyone see the inconsistency-at-best-and-hypocrisy-at-worst of this? - its simply not true that no one can do anything about what is posted here. there are different ways of running a mailing list. here are some things that would be different than what is going on right now. I'm not saying they are better, but just remember there are alternatives: = moderator keeps a higher profile, posts under his own name, keeps order, determines apropriateness = no one argues with moderator or each other about valid topics = list can bar people who are not subscribed from posting. this would in fact bar "hit and run" anonymous messages. however obviously the current list adminstration favors them. = the list charter can ask for people to submit to various practices on the honor system, such as not using pseudonyms. cryptoanarchists who hate the idea of trust are of course going to object to the honor system, because "that which cannot be enforced should not be prohibited". >Finally, it should be noted that the kind of messages you're posting >lately are eerily reminiscent of Detweiler's mental deterioration just >before he went off the deep end. In fact, the line "How long will the >cypherpunks put up with this?" may be an exact quote. perhaps Detweiler is in fact really a pseudonym of Cohen. or maybe Cohen and Detweiler and all other anonymous posts are really a big joke being played on everyone by TCM. although you may have an interesting point there. perhaps thinking about trying to impose order on cryptoanarchists (who themselves occasionally rant about the disorder amongst themselves, although never in those terms) is a sure recipe for frustration insanity. caveat emptor!! (the list, as it is currently set up, is highly vulnerable to agents provacateur. crpytoanarchists should realize that the same "disorders" (oh, sorry, "freedoms") such as completely unrestrained anonymous posting, no "official" moderation etc. they favor can be used very effectively against them when an intelligent an mischievous adversary so chooses or is provoked to do so. there have been visceral demonstrations of this on occasion here <g>)
Vladimir Z. Not-Detweiler writes: > >As Tim May has explained over and over again, "the cypherpunks" do not > >exist. Cypherpunks is a mailing list, not a society or club. > >"The cypherpunks" as a group can do nothing about what gets posted to > >this list except comment on it. > > there are various myths here that ought to be addressed. > > - if the cypherpunks are not really a group, then people wouldn't get > upset what goes under the cypherpunk name. but in fact people flame > hotly what others think is or is not a "legitimate" cypherpunk tactic > or project or whatever. And flame hotly is the full extent of what can be done by "the cypherpunks". The point I'm making is that "the cypherpunks" can't do anything about anonymous posters or other such "problems". It's pretty pointless to ask the list how long "we" will "put up with" postings made by an anonymous person. There's nothing I nor any other J. Random Cypherpunk can do about it, even if I/we wanted to (which I, at least, do not). This is not at all the same issue as whether a given post is on-topic or whether a given opinion is cypherpunk-correct (not that there's much I can do about those things either). In any case, the only time most folks on this list get "upset" is when someone on the list tries to say or imply that they represent "the cypherpunks" or "the cypherpunk point of view". Of course he/she is free to do so anyway, but should expect to get "flamed hotly" if someone disagrees. [ Rest of rant also beside the point ] -- Jeff
On Wed, 27 Dec 1995, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: > > so far the "authorities" are those who have been on a the list a long time. > (it is still an informal system however). this is a reasonable system. > but I object to the way that people such > as PM argue in one message that "there is no such thing as the cypherpunks" > but then endlessly determine themselves what is appropriate for the list. > doesn't anyone see the inconsistency-at-best-and-hypocrisy-at-worst of this? No, what's appropriate is what's in the charter. Stuff related to cryptography and its offshoots. Conspiracy du-jour is totally unrelated, and Perry is right, it doesn't belong. I don't see why that's so hard to understand. Perry isn't acting as a list owner, but the subconscious reminder to "stick closer to the charter". He's a bit billious, but it helps to cut out the drivel, so I don't mind so much. They (I) object when something is labelled as cypherpunk because many of the people on this list have completely opposite views on different topics. There is no gestault. A mailing list does not make a common personality. ____________________________________________________________________________ Doug Hughes Engineering Network Services System/Net Admin Auburn University doug@eng.auburn.edu Pro is to Con as progress is to congress