take the pledge

Look, folks, we all know that 99% of what David Sternlight posts is
garbage. Why don't we all pledge not to answer any of his posts, and
then he'll go away. If necessary, someone can be appointed to post a
weekly "the views expressed by David are junk and we are deliberately
not replying to them directly" message.

David has plenty of places to argue with the wind. We don't need to
add this one.

I'd like to ask people to publically pledge that they will not reply
to David's messages. This is such a pledge.

Perry

"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> writes:
> I'd like to ask people to publically pledge that they will not reply
> to David's messages. This is such a pledge.


I've already said this before, but I'll say it again: *Dr.* David Sternlight
is an asshole and I pledge not to reply to his messages.

Can we talk cryptography now?

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

> Look, folks, we all know that 99% of what David Sternlight posts is
> garbage. Why don't we all pledge not to answer any of his posts, and
> then he'll go away.

   Thanks Perry for a great idea. Add my name to the list.

> 
> > Look, folks, we all know that 99% of what David Sternlight posts is
> > garbage. Why don't we all pledge not to answer any of his posts, and
> > then he'll go away.
> 
>    Thanks Perry for a great idea. Add my name to the list.

Hell, even *I* will agree with Perry on this one.
If we ignore the FUD, he'll go away soon enough.

Sign me up. 
[For 'Punks, of course -- it's too much fun to bait him
in alt.fan.david-sternlight..]


-- 
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

> Look, folks, we all know that 99% of what David Sternlight posts is
> garbage. Why don't we all pledge not to answer any of his posts, and
> then he'll go away.

The more I see, the more I agree. I filter relevant stuff out of here onto
e$pam, and I've only sent out about two of Mr. Sternlight's "n-ty" total
posts in the past four days or so. He certainly is articulate and well
read, but he's considerably mired in heirarchical statist thinking. It's a
wonder he doesn't trip, walking with his head turned exactly backward like
that...

Our political differences aside, and in the spirit of keeping my killfile
from frying under the load of plonking him, ;-), I would like to propose
what could be called a compromise.

I challenge Mr. Sternlight to do two things:

1. Not to respond to this post. :-).

Actually, I believe that's part of my problem with Mr. Sternlight. He's
about the best tat-titter I've ever seen. On my high-school forensics team,
he would bat .500 in all his matches, because he would win all his negative
debates and have no affirmative case for the rest. Or, more to the point,
he might have one, but he never seems to present it except in rebuttal.
Unfortunately, the judges don't count those points, David, and even though
this is just a mail list, the same rules of logic and rhetoric are there,
whether we like them or not.  Which brings me to the second challenge,

2. Write something from scratch.

That is, actually *start* a thread. From scratch. Probably one of the
causes of a lot of the vitriol on this list is instant "Oh, yeah, sez who!"
ability that e-mail gives us. I would be very interested in something from
Mr. Sternlight where he gave us some facts, some deduction from those
facts, and some well-thought-out conclusions from those deductions. It
would probably be a treat to read, and, when done, would not be nearly as
objectionable as his frequent and voluminous pot-shots from behind the
hedgerows. Witty repartee is nice, occasionally, but, like rich food, it
can make one bloated and bilious when consumed in any quantity.


On a small tangent, my idea of a perpetual motion machine would be a
Sternlight/Hallam-Baker flamewar, those two seeming to be the greatest
tat-titters on this list (exclusive of those in my kill-file, who, of
necessity, will remain nameless here). Of course, this would be a paradox,
because even though Mr. (yes, *Mr.*, in the Oxfordian sense, Phill) H-B is
a thoroughgoing liberal crypto-socialist (in the "Myra Brekenridge" sense
of crypto) and Mr. Sternlight is an equal and opposite conservative, they
both end up holding the same end of the stick in arguments around here. I
find that quite interesting to think about from the standpoint of political
philosophy, but it doesn't make them any less annoying to read. For the
moment, anyway.

Cheers,
Bob Hettinga



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMfEYH/gyLN8bw6ZVAQFFAgP7BvdsuU0NG0x70z1/jBkSLQeRC9Cbk4NQ
HoRYWvMRvpRazkDnWRwQvtgnEGWHCZ5jCHTPXu5R68QaHLUHYXGjoUlqtUZYVfTF
R6ZCaZ/Lsvoh0zlr5dOACbfKGKm2+ZTHd8YuOdpBZQTcSzAzVv6lRJ0xMOmkJjXB
BxabINghUoc=
=3rDH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----------------
Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com)
e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"'Bart Bucks' are not legal tender."
                -- Punishment, 100 times on a chalkboard,
                       for Bart Simpson
The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

>> Look, folks, we all know that 99% of what David Sternlight posts is
>> garbage.

Perry is notorious for posting garbage and the above mote in his own eye is
a prime example. 99%? Let's see some data and specifics. I'm always willing
to discuss substantive disagreements, presented civilly.

It's pathetic that Perry, can't even make a rational counter-argument but
has to resort to unsupported defamation.

>Why don't we all pledge not to answer any of his posts, and
>then he'll go away.

Nobody compels you to answer any of my posts. Calling for a "pledge" and an
organized boycott suggests you are afraid people won't agree with you
without trying to make it "politically correct" to do what YOU want. Some
freedom-lover you are.

The truth is none of my points have been refuted by you, and being unable
to deal with rational critical comment, you resort to this.

Go for it. I won't mind, and the noise level will go way down, especially
among the defamers, who don't respond with much substance anyway.

David

> Look, folks, we all know that 99% of what David Sternlight posts is
> garbage. Why don't we all pledge not to answer any of his posts, and
> then he'll go away. If necessary, someone can be appointed to post a
> weekly "the views expressed by David are junk and we are deliberately
> not replying to them directly" message.
>
> David has plenty of places to argue with the wind. We don't need to
> add this one.
>
> I'd like to ask people to publically pledge that they will not reply
> to David's messages. This is such a pledge.

One of the desirable results of free speech is that people get to
listen to ideas rather than credentials.  Some poor Joe from the
ghetos has just as much freedom to speak because he may have good
ideas.  Given that, ignoring someone is much worse than to
listening with reservations.

Ern

>>>>> In article <v03007603ae1620074ea5@[192.187.162.15]>, David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com> writes:

    >>> Look, folks, we all know that 99% of what David Sternlight posts is
    >>> garbage.

    > Perry is notorious for posting garbage and the above mote in his own eye is
    > a prime example. 99%? Let's see some data and specifics. I'm always willing
    > to discuss substantive disagreements, presented civilly.

    > It's pathetic that Perry, can't even make a rational counter-argument but
    > has to resort to unsupported defamation.

    >> Why don't we all pledge not to answer any of his posts, and
    >> then he'll go away.

    > Nobody compels you to answer any of my posts. Calling for a "pledge" and an
    > organized boycott suggests you are afraid people won't agree with you
    > without trying to make it "politically correct" to do what YOU want. Some
    > freedom-lover you are.

    > The truth is none of my points have been refuted by you, and being unable
    > to deal with rational critical comment, you resort to this.

    > Go for it. I won't mind, and the noise level will go way down, especially
    > among the defamers, who don't respond with much substance anyway.

Sheesh.  Count me in on the pledge.  Note that he _still_ hasn't
responded to the call for him to actually _START_ a thread.

-Robin
PS: He is the first _person_ ever to make my kill file for anything.
_Subjects_, yes, _people_ no.  However, there were 600 new cypherpunks
messages over the last three days, and he seems to be way too much of
it.

I DON'T LIKE SPAM!