The House Rules At The Permanent Virtual Cypherpunks Party

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

Here is a document I just hacked.  I am breaking several of the
Rules by posting it, since I am not actually subscribed to
cypherpunks right now.


Enjoy.


Bryce


- -------


0.  Hello

Welcome to the cypherpunks mailing list!  Starting now, you
will receive hundreds of email letters every week on the
subject of privacy and social change in an age of cryptographic
networks.


PLEASE, for everyone's sake, SAVE THIS MESSAGE!


If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, 
you can send mail to <majordomo@toad.com> (NOT
<cypherpunks@toad.com>) with the following command (correctly 
spelled) in the body of your e-mail message:

    unsubscribe cypherpunks Their Name <them@theiraddress.xxx>

Here's the general information for the list you've subscribed 
to, in case you don't already have it:



I.  Etiquette -- The House Rules At The Virtual Cypherpunks Party

The Meta-Rule:  It's John Gilmore's virtual house.  He is the 
sole owner of the computer (toad.com) that hosts cypherpunks 
and the sole authority over what the users of that computer 
(you) can do with it.


Rule 1:  Do not _ever_ send email to the list 
<cypherpunks@toad.com> asking how to accomplish some 
administrative task like unsubscribing yourself.  If you do,
you will be roundly flamed, and nobody will answer your
question.  Instead, send email to <majordomo@toad.com>, or read
the "Administrivia" section below.

Rule 2:  Don't forward articles from other forums to
cypherpunks.  We can find it ourselves the same place you did
if we want to read it.  If you have something useful to say 
about the article, then consider writing a review of the 
article or a response to it and posting _your_ article along 
with a pointer to the original article.

Rule 3:  Don't cross-post articles to cypherpunks as well as to
other lists.  

Rule 4:  Read before you post.  If you are new, don't post at
_all_ until you have read a few weeks of discussion.

Rule 5:  When replying to a message, ask yourself if more than
a thousand other subscribers really need to see your response,
or if is more appropriate to reply privately.

Rule 6:  Don't ask questions which are already answered in the
resources described below.  How can you know whether your
question is already answered in those resources?  Simple:  read
them.

Rule 7:  Don't publically reply to someone just to flame
him/her because it makes you feel better.  We are not here to
make you feel better; we are here to read quality discussion
about certain issues.  Some people actually _specialize_ in 
tempting their adversaries into publically flaming them.  
Don't be a stooge by falling for it.


Advice:

The cypherpunks list is not designed for beginners, although
they are welcome.  If you are totally new to crypto, please 
get and read the crypto FAQs referenced below.  These 
documents are a good introduction.  Crypto is a subtle field 
and a good understanding will not come without some study.  
Please, as a courtesy to all, do some reading to make sure 
that your question is not already frequently asked.

We've noticed that people who post a lot usually have less to 
say.  Refrain from contributing too much.

Re-read your article before your send it.  Then re-read it
again.  I'm serious-- go back over it _twice_.  Really.  It 
helps.

Assume any message from you to the list, no matter how 
insignificant or casual, is archived somewhere for eternity 
for future employers and acquaintances to read (it probably 
is).  You may even wish to unsubscribe right now and then 
re-subscribe under a "nym," rather than using your true name, 
if your views are especially controversial or your job 
prospects are sensitive.



II.  Administrivia -- How To Unsubscribe And Stuff


If you don't know how to do something, like unsubscribe, send mail to

        majordomo@toad.com

and the software robot which answers that address will send you back 
instructions on how to do what you want.  If you don't know the majordomo 
syntax, an empty message to this address will get you a help file, as will a 
command 'help' in the body.  Even with all this automated help, you may 
still encounter problems.  If you get really stuck, please feel free to 
contact me directly at the address I use for mailing list management:

        cypherpunks-owner@toad.com

Please use this address for all mailing list management issues.  Hint: if 
you try to unsubscribe yourself from a different account than you signed up 
for, it likely won't work.  Log back into your old account and try again.  
If you no longer have access to that account, mail me at the list management 
address above.  Also, please realize that there will be some cypherpunks 
messages "in transit" to you at the time you unsubscribe.  If you get a 
response that says you are unsubscribed, but the messages keep coming, wait 
a day and they should stop.

For other questions, my list management address is not the best place, since 
I don't read it every day.  To reach me otherwise, send mail to

        eric@remailer.net (Is Eric still doing this?)

This address is appropriate for emergencies (and wanting to get off the list 
is never an emergency), such as the list continuously spewing articles.  
Please don't send me mail to my regular mailbox asking to be removed; I'll 
just send you back a form letter.

Do not mail to the whole list asking to be removed.  It's rude.  The
majordomo address is made exactly for this purpose.

To post to the whole list, send mail to

        cypherpunks@toad.com

If your mail bounces repeatedly, you will be removed from the list. Nothing 
personal, but I have to look at all the bounce messages.

[There is no digest version available.] (We should put in info here about 
subscribing to Alan's digest at gateway.com and the 2(?) filtered versions 
of the list here. Does someone have all that?)

There is an announcements list which is moderated and has low volume. 
Announcements for physical cypherpunks meetings, new software and important 
developments will be posted there.  Mail to

        cypherpunks-announce-request@toad.com

if you want to be added or removed to the announce list.  All announcements 
also go out to the full cypherpunks list, so there is no need to subscribe 
to both.



III.  About Other Forums

There are other forums to use on the subject of cryptography.  The Usenet 
group sci.crypt deals with technical cryptography; cypherpunks deals with 
technical details but slants the discussion toward their social 
implications.  The Usenet group talk.politics.crypto, as it says, is for 
political theorizing, and cypherpunks gets its share of that, but 
cypherpunks is all pro-crypto; the debates on this list are about how to 
best get crypto out there.  The Usenet group alt.security.pgp is a 
pgp-specific group, and questions about pgp as such are likely better asked 
there than here.  Ditto for alt.security.ripem. If you are beginning to use 
PGP and have questions, you can also subscribe to the PGPusers list by 
sending mail to pgp-users-request@rivertown.net with a subject of subscribe, 
or as an alternative way to subscribe use their Web Mailing List Gateway at 
http://pgp.rivertown.net/#Subscribe



IV.  About Net.Loons On cypherpunks

The cypherpunks list has attracted a fair number of net.loons 
in its day.  If you see an inflammatory article that seems too
crazy to be serious, then it probably is.

The hallmark of these loons is rudeness, and the preferred 
policy in just to ignore their postings (tempting as it is to 
respond).  Replies have never, ever, not even once resulted in
anything constructive and usually create huge flamewars on the
list.  Please, please, don't feed the animals.



V. Resources.

A. The sci.crypt FAQ

anonymous ftp to rtfm.mit.edu:pub/usenet-by-group/sci.crypt

The cryptography FAQ is good online intro to crypto.  Very much worth 
reading.  Last I looked, it was in ten parts.

B. cypherpunks ftp site

anonymous ftp to ftp.csua.berkeley.edu:pub/cypherpunks

This site contains code, information, rants, and other miscellany. There is 
a glossary there that all new members should download and read.  Also 
recommended for all users are Hal Finney's instructions on how to use the 
anonymous remailer system; the remailer sources are there for the 
perl-literate.

C. Bruce Schneier's _Applied Cryptography_, published by Wiley

This is required reading for any serious technical cypherpunk.  An excellent 
overview of the field, it describes many of the basic algorithms and 
protocols with their mathematical descriptions.  Some of the stuff at the 
edges of the scope of the book is a little incomplete, so short descriptions 
in here should lead to library research for the latest papers, or to the 
list for the current thinking.  All in all, a solid and valuable book.  It's 
even got the cypherpunks-request address.

D. For a more technical, lower volume, and much less policy-politics 
oriented list, you might try to subscribe to the coderpunks list, which 
branched off of cypherpunks some time ago, due to frustration with loons. It 
also runs at toad, and you can be considered for subscription by sending 
mail to Majordomo@toad.com with these words in the body of the message: 

subscribe coderpunks Their Name <them@theiraddress.xxx>

E. The Snake Oil FAQ, by Matt Curtin & others, located at:

   http://www.research.megasoft.com/people/cmcurtin/snake-oil-faq.html

Has some useful warning signs to keep in mind. "Snake Oil," here, means 
"weak cryptography," which brings us to...

F. An incomplete cypherpunks translation list:

PGP -- Pretty Good Privacy software.
PRZ -- Philip R. Zimmermann, PGP's author.
GAK -- Government Access to Keys (for crypto, but it might as well be for 
your front door).
KRAP -- Key Recovery Access Program (a brand new flavor of GAK).
TLAs -- Three Letter Agencies (the alphabet soup of the US government -- 
FBI, DEA, IRS, CIA, DIA, NRO, ATF, NSA -- all your favorites).
NSA -- the US National Security Agency in Fort Meade, Maryland, responsible 
for encryption codes and computer security for the entire US government.
LEAs -- Law Enforcement Agencies (see above, at least when they're not busy 
breaking the law themselves...).
ITAR -- International Traffic in Arms Regulations. A silly US government 
regulation outlawing the "export" of strong cryptography software which is 
all over the planet anyway.

[Please suggest other resources and acronyms.]



IV. Famous last words

My preferred e-mail address for list maintenance topics only is
hughes@toad.com.  All other mail, including emergency mail, should go
to hughes@ah.com, where I read mail much more regularly.

Enjoy and deploy.

Eric

[From here on I changed/added nothing (it's gospel, after all:). -- JMR]
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cypherpunks assume privacy is a good thing and wish there were more
of it.  Cypherpunks acknowledge that those who want privacy must
create it for themselves and not expect governments, corporations, or
other large, faceless organizations to grant them privacy out of
beneficence.  Cypherpunks know that people have been creating their
own privacy for centuries with whispers, envelopes, closed doors, and
couriers.  Cypherpunks do not seek to prevent other people from
speaking about their experiences or their opinions.

The most important means to the defense of privacy is encryption. To
encrypt is to indicate the desire for privacy.  But to encrypt with
weak cryptography is to indicate not too much desire for privacy.
Cypherpunks hope that all people desiring privacy will learn how best
to defend it.

Cypherpunks are therefore devoted to cryptography.  Cypherpunks wish
to learn about it, to teach it, to implement it, and to make more of
it.  Cypherpunks know that cryptographic protocols make social
structures.  Cypherpunks know how to attack a system and how to
defend it.  Cypherpunks know just how hard it is to make good
cryptosystems.

Cypherpunks love to practice.  They love to play with public key
cryptography.  They love to play with anonymous and pseudonymous mail
forwarding and delivery.  They love to play with DC-nets.  They love
to play with secure communications of all kinds.

Cypherpunks write code.  They know that someone has to write code to
defend privacy, and since it's their privacy, they're going to write
it.  Cypherpunks publish their code so that their fellow cypherpunks
may practice and play with it.  Cypherpunks realize that security is
not built in a day and are patient with incremental progress.

Cypherpunks don't care if you don't like the software they write. 
Cypherpunks know that software can't be destroyed.  Cypherpunks know
that a widely dispersed system can't be shut down.

Cypherpunks will make the networks safe for privacy.

[Last updated 11/28/95]



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2

iQB1AwUBMp2nikjbHy8sKZitAQGoiQMAgAfvKA0751PAW6ivMQ0+KQfa19cuueFY
VqPWxJSMXBE+8v37+sx6nn7FN/qFYkoccaBkOJdOZb7zu2kX+ptV/T153F6cFFFT
6RULRhMKQOiWB7JV+fdr2QV136hR8U/1
=AKDO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

> Rule 2:  Don't forward articles from other forums to
> cypherpunks.  We can find it ourselves the same place you did

This is not universally true. Everyone doesn't have access to
a functional News server or even to the Web, and some interesting
stuff could come from closed commercial sites etc.

But even if everyone had global access, I think there is a place for
forwarded articles on the CP list. It's a convenient way to keep
up with the happenings to passively watch on-topic items drop into
one's mailbox or to be able to request longer pieces with very few
keystrokes, jya-style. The most lazy of us will hardly even light
up our browsers for a maybe-interesting URL.

The problem is off-topic or quasi-on-topic forwards, including EPIC/EFF
kind of announcements. And all forwards would benefit from a personal
comment by the forwarder (at the beginning of the mail, NOT after the
10 screens document) where he explains what is interesting cp-wise.


Asgaard

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


- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

In <Pine.HPP.3.91.961129170630.7957A-100000@cor.sos.sll.se>, on 11/29/96 
   at 05:55 PM, Asgaard <asgaard@Cor.sos.sll.se> said:

::> Rule 2:  Don't forward articles from other forums to
::> cypherpunks.  We can find it ourselves the same place you did

::This is not universally true. Everyone doesn't have access to a
::functional News server or even to the Web, and some interesting stuff
::could come from closed commercial sites etc.
::
        for instance, I read a lot of liberal hogwash lists [know thine
    enemy].  there are lists after lists about lists. sorting out the
    precisely cut and trimmed info is hard --and there is not time to
    read a man who is being paid by the word!  

    good summaries with pointers is essential.
      
:: [snip] ...to be able to request longer pieces with very few keystrokes,
::jya-style. 
::
        john provides an extremely valuable service by covering a broad
    spectrum of sources.  since I read others, I am considering using
    the auto-respond features of procmail to do the same.  however, I
    sure wont cover as much ground as john does!

:: The most lazy of us will hardly even light up our browsers
::for a maybe-interesting URL.
::
        unfortunately, that is too true --even when your mail browser 
    will pass the URL to the browser which is often in the background
    anyway.

::The problem is off-topic or quasi-on-topic forwards, including EPIC/EFF
::kind of announcements. 
::
    hard to discern sometimes

::And all forwards would benefit from a personal
::comment by the forwarder (at the beginning of the mail, NOT after the 10
::screens document) where he explains what is interesting cp-wise.

        ABSOLUTELY!  always put your comments and the "pointer" out front 
    --even if you are planning interline comments.

- --
  without arms they do not resist; 
    without communication they know not what to resist.
        -attila

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: latin1
Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later.

iQCVAwUBMp9DRb04kQrCC2kFAQH7FAP/U0Xrs8/w61tudGrDmj/XpoLFXCsWdq0l
xab+rBby242AVJN0BxULUTVH+F4hblIcJGy52gWTKdwcKHS9lShmhgTFbRpepO+L
GLdX+LV6fiBr4SoyD+1+pQBdzmYGyjmXiG3Xp8JoB9q2OBTdJbgoLsCHB6dX97Pe
KR3Z7XsowSw=
=WUSX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Asgaard wrote:
> > Rule 2:  Don't forward articles from other forums to
> > cypherpunks.  We can find it ourselves the same place you did

[snippo]

I wrote a short response to one point in the original post, and it got
"lost" somehow.

Bryce (I think) said words to the effect that "We (subscribers) are doing
something with John's computer, etc.", as though the list subscribers are
actually operating John's computer, with John's kind permission and over-
view (as though children being supervised in school).

What I said was:  I don't *do* anything with John's computer, I merely
mail messages with an address on them, and John can remail or dispose of
those messages as he wishes, as long as he doesn't modify them or otherwise
use them for any purpose besides what they were intended for.

Bryce's (I think) writing was clearly an example of the kind of double-
speak that 1984-ish censors use to justify their actions, and I for one
cannot let that kind of B.S. go unchallenged.

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

 A million monkeys operating under the pseudonym "Dale Thorn
 <dthorn@gte.net>" typed:
>
> Bryce (I think) said words to the effect that "We (subscribers) are doing
> something with John's computer, etc.", as though the list subscribers are
> actually operating John's computer, with John's kind permission and over-
> view


Yes, this is fairly accurate.  Of course we (most of us) do not
have full Turing machine access to John's computer or to its
peripherals, but we do have access to a few simple functions
which we use with gusto, including broadcasting, subscribing
and unsubscribing, and the other functions of majordomo.


Perhaps you are objecting to the idea that our access to John's
computer is equivalent to, say, our access to our own
computers?  I certainly agree with you that it is not the same
kind of access.


> What I said was:  I don't *do* anything with John's computer, I merely
> mail messages with an address on them, and John can remail or dispose of
> those messages as he wishes, as long as he doesn't modify them or otherwise
> use them for any purpose besides what they were intended for.


Yeah, there are some (relatively) subtle issues here like "when
is it merely extended causal relation and when is it usage", or 
"what are the details of this implicit agreement that we have
with John" or whatnot, but I'm not sure that those are the
issues that you are talking about.  To wit:


> Bryce's (I think) writing was clearly an example of the kind of double-
> speak that 1984-ish censors use to justify their actions, and I for one
> cannot let that kind of B.S. go unchallenged.


What?  What sly newspeak did I use and more importantly what
great truth am I attempting to conceal?


Bryce




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2

iQB1AwUBMqLFH0jbHy8sKZitAQGJuQL+O3nz30rJqJp2rGajj+yeZAFTlu4hISTU
/GbSxJLXrBCHGA0SQhVnMpImre3RhJEx1IrwFV+ZeWiubVYtR24s1CEzxDUu5fMb
3XcQUHeUJmG4JpjyFsvpN1Mh6WKKy2Al
=Lp9K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

> > Rule 2:  Don't forward articles from other forums to
> > cypherpunks.  We can find it ourselves the same place you did
> 
> This is not universally true. Everyone doesn't have access to
> a functional News server or even to the Web, and some interesting
> stuff could come from closed commercial sites etc.


Yeah, my "rules" are mainly to intimidate newbies into holding
still long enough to be properly socialized.  Only the
Meta-Rule is inviolate.


Regards,

Bryce, who once receifved a Perry-gram for forwarding an
article to cpunks which, unbeknownst to him, had already been
so forwarded by others




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2

iQB1AwUBMqK7+kjbHy8sKZitAQEf5AL9EOuni5KdQ8Ug6SY+a0DmiRruoD0ruSam
cs35j2So279AT07u0A3fqDeBqUehJfCupyXKU5GekV1IO5M/qpPrxL02/LvSROqS
Y3XcVQjD3ZFDOGfLYZysWo2YTaUFMyGF
=+E96
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Bryce <bryce@digicash.com> writes:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> > > Rule 2:  Don't forward articles from other forums to
> > > cypherpunks.  We can find it ourselves the same place you did
> >
> > This is not universally true. Everyone doesn't have access to
> > a functional News server or even to the Web, and some interesting
> > stuff could come from closed commercial sites etc.
>
> Yeah, my "rules" are mainly to intimidate newbies into holding
> still long enough to be properly socialized.  Only the
> Meta-Rule is inviolate.

Thank you, Bryce, for an excellent quote. Indeed "cypher punks" control
freaks are into indimidation and power games. No wonder there's so much
intersection between the "cypher punks" and the Usenet news.* Cabal!

"Cypher punks" have degenerated into an inbred cybermob whose goal in life
is to "enforce" the "rules" that apply to "newbies" (more Cabal-speak) but
not to the "in-crowd".

Paul Bradley, the vitriolic flamer, is a good example of a "cypher punk".
Paul doesn't know much about cryptography, but he's been harrassing Don Wood
because Don Wood dared propose a cryprosystem. I haven't examined Don's
proposal and don't know how good it is. Paul apparently FTP's Don's files
but lacked the technical knowledge to understand the proposal. Paul first
posted nonsensical attacks on Don's proposal (discussing a brute-force
attack on one-time pad). When several people, including myself, pointed out
that Paul was writing nonsense, Paul claimed that he mistyped "one-time pad"
for "stream cypher". Although it's an entirely different animal, Paul's
writings were still nonsense, even if one substituted "stream cypher" for
"one-time pad". After being exposed as ignoramus, Paul abandoned attempts at
technical discussion and turned to baiting Don with ad hominem attacks,
calling him "master of bullshit", and putting "(spit)" after his name. Don
reacted to Paul's provocation exactly once and rather mildly - calling Paul
"fatbrain" in reference to his e-mail host. That was the last we heard from
Don. Has the content-based censor John Gilmore pulled Don's plug as
punishment for "inappropriate content"? Inquiring minds want to know.

For the logorrhetics' reading pleasure, I reproduce another quote from Paul:

]From: paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
]To: "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" <dlv@bwalk.dm.com>
]Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 15:18:16 +0000
]Subject: Re: Workers Paradise. /Political rant.
]Message-Id: <843149202.18173.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
]
]> Yeah!!! And I'll bounce each mailbomb to everyone who tries it. Won't
]> that be fun.  Too ba your netcom account won't last long.
]
]`Fraid not loser, I`ll just mailbomb your ass so bad you won`t know
]what hit you, and my account is on demon, who can handle my incoming
]mail (about 300 a day) without a problem, go ahead punk, make my
]day..
<sig>

(Paul tried mailbombing me and was warned that his mailbombs will be bounced
back to him.)

---

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

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM writes:
> Bryce <bryce@digicash.com> writes:
>
> > Yeah, my "rules" are mainly to intimidate newbies into holding
> > still long enough to be properly socialized.  Only the
> > Meta-Rule is inviolate.
> 
> "Cypher punks" have degenerated into an inbred cybermob whose goal in life
> is to "enforce" the "rules" that apply to "newbies" (more Cabal-speak) but
> not to the "in-crowd".

"Double standards" is the term that springs to mind ...

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> 
> "Cypher punks" have degenerated into an inbred cybermob whose goal in life
> is to "enforce" the "rules" that apply to "newbies" (more Cabal-speak) but
> not to the "in-crowd".
> 
> Paul Bradley, the vitriolic flamer, is a good example of a "cypher punk".
> Paul doesn't know much about cryptography, but he's been harrassing Don Wood
> because Don Wood dared propose a cryprosystem. I haven't examined Don's
> proposal and don't know how good it is. Paul apparently FTP's Don's files
> but lacked the technical knowledge to understand the proposal. Paul first

Why don't you look at it. I am interested in your comments regarding
possible attacks on Don Wood's system.

	- Igor.

ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:
> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> >
> > "Cypher punks" have degenerated into an inbred cybermob whose goal in life
> > is to "enforce" the "rules" that apply to "newbies" (more Cabal-speak) but
> > not to the "in-crowd".
> >
> > Paul Bradley, the vitriolic flamer, is a good example of a "cypher punk".
> > Paul doesn't know much about cryptography, but he's been harrassing Don Woo
> > because Don Wood dared propose a cryprosystem. I haven't examined Don's
> > proposal and don't know how good it is. Paul apparently FTP's Don's files
> > but lacked the technical knowledge to understand the proposal. Paul first
>
> Why don't you look at it. I am interested in your comments regarding
> possible attacks on Don Wood's system.

Igor,

If an entrepreneur wants to sell a new electrical gizmo and wants an
independent review of its safety, he pays $$$ for it. Apparently one of the
functions of the new brand of "cypher punks" is to provide a similar service
for free. Sorry, I'm not a part of it, and I'm not *that* interested in Don's
proposal. I have better use for my time.

(I suspect that you too have better use of your time, like shagging your
girlfriend and/or working on the robomoderated misc.jobs.* - nag, nag)

I also don't think that the ease of breaking the code should be the only
consideration in evaluating a low-end cryptographic product. I happen to
advocate widest possible availabily of crypto for the unwashed masses - again,
unlike today's "cypher punks" who think crypto is "kewl" stuff for the "3lit3
d00dz". This current pseudo-crypto crowd reminds me of a hobby I had when I
was very young and New York City had hundreds of dial-up BBS's. Most of them
were run by kids and their main function was the "elite" download section
featuring pirated copyrighted software. I figured out a technique to download
whatever I wanted from the "elite" sections without the BBS operator's knowing
who it was. (They normally "validated" only someone they knew and demanded
uploades for downloads. "Expropriate the expropriator", as Lenin taught us.)
After a while I got tired of it because invariably the commercial software I
downloaded was junk, not worth the downloading time and the disk space.

Back to crypto: If someone wants to market (and support) a crypto package for
the masses and gets the masses to deploy it, I take my hat off to them. It
doesn't matter if the code itself can be cracked as easily as the codes used
in PKZIP or MS Excel or MS Word (reportedly). If the users discover that the
code isn't strong enough for their needs, they'll upgrade to stronger codes.
The path from weak crypto to strong crypto is much shorter than the path from
no crypto to some crypto.

If the user interface and logical and transparent and provides hooks to
replace the weak (non-export-controlled) crypto being shipped with a stronger
one (say, by FTPing a DLL) then it's a Good Thing.

Don is doing a Good Thing and the "cypher punks" are doing an evil thing.

---

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

Bryce <bryce@digicash.com> writes:
> The Meta-Rule:  It's John Gilmore's virtual house.  He is the
> sole owner of the computer (toad.com) that hosts cypherpunks
> and the sole authority over what the users of that computer
> (you) can do with it.

Since John Gilmore and his sexual preferences are discussed so much on
this mailing list, you really should say a few more words about him.

Like, mention that John is a liar and a content-based censor.

---

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

Bryce wrote:
> Here is a document I just hacked.  I am breaking several of the Rules
> by posting it, since I am not actually subscribed to cypherpunks
> right now.
> Welcome to the cypherpunks mailing list!  Starting now, you will
> receive hundreds of email letters every week on the subject of
> privacy and social change in an age of cryptographic networks.

[snip]

> I.  Etiquette -- The House Rules At The Virtual Cypherpunks Party
> The Meta-Rule:  It's John Gilmore's virtual house.  He is the
> sole owner of the computer (toad.com) that hosts cypherpunks
> and the sole authority over what the users of that computer
> (you) can do with it.

[mo' snip]

Ordinarily, I'd leave this post alone, but I really hate it when people
twist ideas for their own philosophical purposes.  To whit: "John is the
sole authority over what the users of his computer can do with his
computer" (quote approximate).

I don't *do* anything with *his* computer. I send email into the ether
with an address on it, and he picks it up at his discretion and does
what he wants with it.  I am in no way involved in that process, and I
do not share *any* responsibility for how he handles the email. As far
as his authority goes, I've been subscribed for several months now, and
I don't recall a single statement by Gilmore himself as to what this
"authority" thing means.  But then, why should he, and why should you?
It's patently obvious to anyone with a brain, and we don't need some
authoritarian boot-licking computer-bureaucrat telling us how it is.

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

Hi Dale.  I believe I've seen you around.  Thanks for replying
to my article.


>  Bryce wrote:
> > I.  Etiquette -- The House Rules At The Virtual Cypherpunks Party
> > The Meta-Rule:  It's John Gilmore's virtual house.  He is the
> > sole owner of the computer (toad.com) that hosts cypherpunks
> > and the sole authority over what the users of that computer
> > (you) can do with it.
> 
> [mo' snip]
> 
> Ordinarily, I'd leave this post alone, but I really hate it when people
> twist ideas for their own philosophical purposes.  To whit: "John is the
> sole authority over what the users of his computer can do with his
> computer" (quote approximate).


Can you "to wit" one or two more times, here?  I'm not sure
what idea is being twisted into what other idea and which
philosophical purpose this twisting serves.  But I'm curious.


> I don't *do* anything with *his* computer. I send email into the ether
> with an address on it, and he picks it up at his discretion and does
> what he wants with it.  I am in no way involved in that process, and I
> do not share *any* responsibility for how he handles the email. 


Hm.  So if you send an email into the ether with 
"Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com" and "Subject: MAKE MONEY REALLY
TRULY FAST!", then you share no responsibility for the fact
that a copy of that email is going to arrive in the inboxes of
thousands of subscribers?


Okay, it could be an interesting discussion, but what's your
point?  


My point was (and is) that neither you nor I have any kind of
_right_ to access the services of toad.com against John's
will.  Seems like a very simple point (deceptively simple, one
might say...), but I recall several people, including Dale
Thorn, opining that Dmitri Vulis _did_ have the right to access
those services with or without John's consent.


What gives?


Regards,

Bryce




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2

iQB1AwUBMqLB80jbHy8sKZitAQHf9QL+LBEJ3Fc+l2KjfDFSNP9iYac0k07Bb20e
mEzpNyvfJxJkH1sTc9D/jkr59JGSm888Akp24FchrQQNA2YcUkon0XlY3p/pyJYm
oDhnQyg0cR+u9nAbeWrIbV5Krz1eeqqw
=fa24
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Bryce wrote:
> Hi Dale.  I believe I've seen you around.  Thanks for replying
> to my article.
> >  Bryce wrote:
> > > I.  Etiquette -- The House Rules At The Virtual Cypherpunks Party
> > > The Meta-Rule:  It's John Gilmore's virtual house.  He is the
> > > sole owner of the computer (toad.com) that hosts cypherpunks
> > > and the sole authority over what the users of that computer
> > > (you) can do with it.

> > Ordinarily, I'd leave this post alone, but I really hate it when people
> > twist ideas for their own philosophical purposes.  To whit: "John is the
> > sole authority over what the users of his computer can do with his
> > computer" (quote approximate).
> > I don't *do* anything with *his* computer. I send email into the ether
> > with an address on it, and he picks it up at his discretion and does
> > what he wants with it.  I am in no way involved in that process, and I
> > do not share *any* responsibility for how he handles the email.

> Hm.  So if you send an email into the ether with
> "Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com" and "Subject: MAKE MONEY REALLY
> TRULY FAST!", then you share no responsibility for the fact
> that a copy of that email is going to arrive in the inboxes of
> thousands of subscribers?
> Okay, it could be an interesting discussion, but what's your point?
> My point was (and is) that neither you nor I have any kind of
> _right_ to access the services of toad.com against John's
> will.  Seems like a very simple point (deceptively simple, one
> might say...), but I recall several people, including Dale
> Thorn, opining that Dmitri Vulis _did_ have the right to access
> those services with or without John's consent.

Now I've gotcha!  If I, Dale Thorn, an ordinary person (not a commercial
mailer), realize somehow what your snail mail address is (an analogy),
and I send you a personal letter, are you saying I don't have the "right"
to do so?  Even if I am aware that you redistribute the letter, as, say,
a newspaper such as the L.A. Times would?

I'm guessing that what you're saying is something to do with the content
or size of such a mailing, yes?

But whatever the case, I'm not "doing something with" your mailbox if
I send you a snail mail letter, and I'm not "doing something with" your
computer if I send you a posting. It's you who know the result of opening
up your computer to the phone lines, and it's up to you to post *your*
"rules", and to date, I don't recall any postings from John Gilmore to
me or the list regarding such rules, just a few little tin-plated
dictators doing it in his name.

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

> Now I've gotcha!  If I, Dale Thorn, an ordinary person (not a commercial
> mailer), realize somehow what your snail mail address is (an analogy),
> and I send you a personal letter, are you saying I don't have the "right"
> to do so?  Even if I am aware that you redistribute the letter, as, say,
> a newspaper such as the L.A. Times would?


Yes this is a fine analogy.  You have the right to send
whatever letters you want; you don't have the right to demand
that any particular thing be _done_ with those letters once
they arrive, in the absence of some contract to the contrary.


> I'm guessing that what you're saying is something to do with the content
> or size of such a mailing, yes?


Noooo...  What I was saying was that even such a simple service
as a mailing list raises some complex issues about agency and
responsibility.  Did _you_ send MMF to all those people, or did
Gilmore?  What if Gilmore had a MMF filter in place?  What if
you evaded it?  What if Gilmore only broadcasts signed messages
and you signed the MMF?  What if you paid to have it broadcast?


So what _I'm_ saying is that there are some complex issues
about this kind of cyberspatial event, but that the realspace
substrate is relatively simple-- it's Gilmore's computer and
you have no moral authority to demand that he do or not do any
particular thing with it.


In the following, you appear to take exception to both of these
claims, or at least to the first one-- I'm not sure.


> But whatever the case, I'm not "doing something with" your mailbox if
> I send you a snail mail letter, and I'm not "doing something with" your
> computer if I send you a posting. It's you who know the result of opening
> up your computer to the phone lines, and it's up to you to post *your*
> "rules", and to date, I don't recall any postings from John Gilmore to
> me or the list regarding such rules, just a few little tin-plated
> dictators doing it in his name.


I'm still not sure if you are just prone to colorful rhetoric,
or if I have really upset you with something I've said.  If the
latter, I still don't understand what, exactly.


Bryce




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2

iQB1AwUBMqL5UEjbHy8sKZitAQEukQMAjS4etLT4pRzoQGrQrNr77m8NwEs4+VYC
coIbBNqnVtllRg5eofMUaJvX8zZQKicnwF7ZiT1SxnAlHygOMcnFztI8oJS3HNG5
lpo86+8rtiLjx4jPC4zntGxCrPkECCS3
=UPBq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Bryce wrote:
> > Now I've gotcha!  If I, Dale Thorn, an ordinary person (not a commercial
> > mailer), realize somehow what your snail mail address is (an analogy),
> > and I send you a personal letter, are you saying I don't have the "right"
> > to do so?  Even if I am aware that you redistribute the letter, as, say,
> > a newspaper such as the L.A. Times would?

> Yes this is a fine analogy.  You have the right to send
> whatever letters you want; you don't have the right to demand
> that any particular thing be _done_ with those letters once
> they arrive, in the absence of some contract to the contrary.

In the interest of reducing the amount of argument, let's speak more
precisely:  I think people *do* have the right to demand such a thing,
although they do *not* necessarily have the right to force such a thing.
Perhaps there is a thin line between "demand" and "protest", but most
subscribers should be able to figure it out.

> > I'm guessing that what you're saying is something to do with the content
> > or size of such a mailing, yes?

> Noooo...  What I was saying was that even such a simple service
> as a mailing list raises some complex issues about agency and
> responsibility.  Did _you_ send MMF to all those people, or did
> Gilmore?  What if Gilmore had a MMF filter in place?  What if
> you evaded it?  What if Gilmore only broadcasts signed messages
> and you signed the MMF?  What if you paid to have it broadcast?

I can't argue the responsibility part.  As far as the size issue, it was
raised (sadly) several days and hundreds of postings *after* Dimitri was
excommunicated from the list, by none other than T.C. May.  Tsk, tsk.

> So what _I'm_ saying is that there are some complex issues
> about this kind of cyberspatial event, but that the realspace
> substrate is relatively simple-- it's Gilmore's computer and
> you have no moral authority to demand that he do or not do any
> particular thing with it.

I made note to this list time and time again requesting that people not
state the obvious - who owns what hardware and what rights they have to
pull the plug or whatever.  I seriously doubt that even the least
intelligent cypherpunk would misunderstand such a thing. Do you really
believe that myself and other cypherpunks want to "seize" John's equip-
ment, morally or otherwise?  You are correct about certain issues being
complex, but one of the big failings of the crowd who supported Gilmore
on this action was their failure to understand the point I've made here -
that we *do* understand basic property rights, etc.

> In the following, you appear to take exception to both of these
> claims, or at least to the first one-- I'm not sure.

> > But whatever the case, I'm not "doing something with" your mailbox if
> > I send you a snail mail letter, and I'm not "doing something with" your
> > computer if I send you a posting. It's you who know the result of opening
> > up your computer to the phone lines, and it's up to you to post *your*
> > "rules", and to date, I don't recall any postings from John Gilmore to
> > me or the list regarding such rules, just a few little tin-plated
> > dictators doing it in his name.

> I'm still not sure if you are just prone to colorful rhetoric,
> or if I have really upset you with something I've said.  If the
> latter, I still don't understand what, exactly.

How can I say this better?  Myself and a number of other people would
really have appreciated it if John had defended himself.  The fact of
all these other would-be experts on cyber-rights and morals preaching
to the list on behalf of Gilmore, and Gilmore being silent, argues
(not proves, just argues) heavily in favor of Dimitri et al.

On Mon, 02 Dec 1996 21:34:14 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote:

   Bryce wrote:
   > whatever letters you want; you don't have the right to demand
   > that any particular thing be _done_ with those letters once
   > they arrive, in the absence of some contract to the contrary.

   In the interest of reducing the amount of argument, let's speak more
   precisely:  I think people *do* have the right to demand such a thing,

Do you indeed?  OK, I hereby demand that you set up a mailing list on
your computer for discussion of "censorship" on cypherpunks.

Why do I have the right to demand this?

   although they do *not* necessarily have the right to force such a thing.

do not *necessarily*??

Obviously they have no right to use force, since they have no right to
make such a demand in the first place.  But *if* they had such a
right, why on earth would you say they have no right to use force?
(You may not agree that they should be able to use physical force
themselves, but at least they should have a law or something to apply
pressure, right?  What kind of right is it if it has nothing at all
backing it up?)

   intelligent cypherpunk would misunderstand such a thing. Do you really
   believe that myself and other cypherpunks want to "seize" John's equip-
   ment, morally or otherwise?  You are correct about certain issues being

Yes.  You said so yourself, in this very same post.

   complex, but one of the big failings of the crowd who supported Gilmore
   on this action was their failure to understand the point I've made here -
   that we *do* understand basic property rights, etc.

This must be some newspeak interpretation of "understand" of which I
was not previously aware...

   How can I say this better?  Myself and a number of other people would
   really have appreciated it if John had defended himself.  The fact of

He had no need to defend himself.

Any attempt to "defend" himself from people who claim they have a
right to demand the use of his computer (if not *necessarily* to back
up said demand with force) would probably have been wasted effort
anyway.  [Yes, I know you think posting to cypherpunks is not "use" of
John's computer.  Substitute whatever word fits what you think it
*is*, if you must.]

   all these other would-be experts on cyber-rights and morals preaching
   to the list on behalf of Gilmore, and Gilmore being silent, argues
   (not proves, just argues) heavily in favor of Dimitri et al.

So Tim May's silence in response to Vulis's nonsense, while some
others came out in his favour "argues (not proves, just argues)
heavily in favor of Dimitri" too?  Yeah, sure!  Wanna buy a bridge?

-- 
Paul Foley <mycroft@actrix.gen.nz>       ---         PGPmail preferred

	   PGP key ID 0x1CA3386D available from keyservers
    fingerprint = 4A 76 83 D8 99 BC ED 33  C5 02 81 C9 BF 7A 91 E8
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This Fortue Examined By INSPECTOR NO. 2-14

Paul Foley wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 1996 21:34:14 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote:
>    Bryce wrote:
>    > whatever letters you want; you don't have the right to demand
>    > that any particular thing be _done_ with those letters once
>    > they arrive, in the absence of some contract to the contrary.

>    In the interest of reducing the amount of argument, let's speak more
>    precisely:  I think people *do* have the right to demand such a thing,

> Do you indeed?  OK, I hereby demand that you set up a mailing list on
> your computer for discussion of "censorship" on cypherpunks.

I hear your demand, which you have a right to make, and I reject it,
which is my right. You proved my point, that you could make the demand,
and I further proved it, by saying no.  Is that clear enough?

[other similar drivel snipped]

On Tue, 03 Dec 1996 07:33:53 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote:

   Paul Foley wrote:
   > Do you indeed?  OK, I hereby demand that you set up a mailing list on
   > your computer for discussion of "censorship" on cypherpunks.

   I hear your demand, which you have a right to make, and I reject it,
   which is my right. You proved my point, that you could make the demand,
   and I further proved it, by saying no.  Is that clear enough?

Help!  Help!  I'm being censored!

-- 
Paul Foley <mycroft@actrix.gen.nz>       ---         PGPmail preferred

	   PGP key ID 0x1CA3386D available from keyservers
    fingerprint = 4A 76 83 D8 99 BC ED 33  C5 02 81 C9 BF 7A 91 E8
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice, n.:
	A decision in your favor.

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

> I made note to this list time and time again requesting that people not
> state the obvious - who owns what hardware and what rights they have to
> pull the plug or whatever.  I seriously doubt that even the least
> intelligent cypherpunk would misunderstand such a thing. Do you really
> believe that myself and other cypherpunks want to "seize" John's equip-
> ment, morally or otherwise?  You are correct about certain issues being
> complex, but one of the big failings of the crowd who supported Gilmore
> on this action was their failure to understand the point I've made here -
> that we *do* understand basic property rights, etc.


Ah.  Then we are in agreement here.  My "Rule" in the House
Rules etc. simply stated the obvious fact, for the benefit of 
those who need it stated, of Gilmore's sole authority over the 
physical substrate.  I vaguely recall some subscribers implying
or stating otherwise during the vanish Vulis fracas.  It would
not at all surprise me if some people disagreed with this
simple premise--  they habitually do so with regard to "public"
establishments like bars and restaurants, and it isn't much of
a stretch to start thinking of cypherpunks as a similarly
"public" institution.


Bryce




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2

iQB1AwUBMqRVAUjbHy8sKZitAQFRMgL/UTIlPbTu2Z8sIIKLX4wkLWS23WCrVmDr
R7PVfovgZgIYoJYPAwtRxrqqQxOJtaS2SAMIItbDtGA1jG75q5GlxeS/wg303NbE
f9gX1Ok0vjbfGiyC/lyf58DJfJ6FUDal
=kkrb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Bryce wrote:
> > I made note to this list time and time again requesting that people not
> > state the obvious - who owns what hardware and what rights they have to
> > pull the plug or whatever.  I seriously doubt that even the least
> > intelligent cypherpunk would misunderstand such a thing. Do you really
> > believe that myself and other cypherpunks want to "seize" John's equip-
> > ment, morally or otherwise?  You are correct about certain issues being
> > complex, but one of the big failings of the crowd who supported Gilmore
> > on this action was their failure to understand the point I've made here -
> > that we *do* understand basic property rights, etc.

> Ah.  Then we are in agreement here.  My "Rule" in the House
> Rules etc. simply stated the obvious fact, for the benefit of
> those who need it stated, of Gilmore's sole authority over the
> physical substrate.  I vaguely recall some subscribers implying
> or stating otherwise during the vanish Vulis fracas.  It would
> not at all surprise me if some people disagreed with this
> simple premise--  they habitually do so with regard to "public"
> establishments like bars and restaurants, and it isn't much of
> a stretch to start thinking of cypherpunks as a similarly
> "public" institution.

*We* are not in agreement.  If you insist on arguing that, I'll have to
resort to the "Spock" clarification (a la Star Trek), that it's not merely
what you say I object to, it's you I object to.

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

> > > I made note to this list time and time again requesting that people not
> > > state the obvious - who owns what hardware and what rights they have to
> > > pull the plug or whatever.  I seriously doubt that even the least
> > > intelligent cypherpunk would misunderstand such a thing. Do you really
> > > believe that myself and other cypherpunks want to "seize" John's equip-
> > > ment, morally or otherwise?  You are correct about certain issues being
> > > complex, but one of the big failings of the crowd who supported Gilmore
> > > on this action was their failure to understand the point I've made here -
> > > that we *do* understand basic property rights, etc.
> 
> > Ah.  Then we are in agreement here.  My "Rule" in the House
> > Rules etc. simply stated the obvious fact, for the benefit of
> > those who need it stated, of Gilmore's sole authority over the
> > physical substrate.  I vaguely recall some subscribers implying
> > or stating otherwise during the vanish Vulis fracas.  It would
> > not at all surprise me if some people disagreed with this
> > simple premise--  they habitually do so with regard to "public"
> > establishments like bars and restaurants, and it isn't much of
> > a stretch to start thinking of cypherpunks as a similarly
> > "public" institution.
> 
> *We* are not in agreement.  If you insist on arguing that, I'll have to
> resort to the "Spock" clarification (a la Star Trek), that it's not merely
> what you say I object to, it's you I object to.


Um..  Whatever, dude.


Have a nice day.


Bryce




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i
Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2

iQB1AwUBMqVZC0jbHy8sKZitAQFdjQMAhFo4RA1n+O4Giksi+4alHibWZ3euNy9F
NZCh4q7V0KFxV4JScokr1lOYLnudsRaH61gHhyJ38mXXwfgKLbcg0Dd1iY8IiQit
8YvRXTqx+GLZI26aZ5UDL9FriMRbxSnf
=iRix
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

At 3:05 AM +1300 12/4/96, Paul Foley wrote:

>So Tim May's silence in response to Vulis's nonsense, while some
>others came out in his favour "argues (not proves, just argues)
>heavily in favor of Dimitri" too?  Yeah, sure!  Wanna buy a bridge?

Actually, I've gotten several comments in e-mail to this effect, that if
I'm not actively defending myself, maybe I'm guilty. Most were written
roughly along the lines of:

"Yo, Tim! This Dimitri dewd is rilly, rilly makin' some heavy charges. So
how come your not, like, defending your self? Like, is he maybe like right?"

[spelling and grammatical errors deliberate, to provide the flavor of some
of the post-literate e-mail I get]

As to the ramblings of Dale Thorn about how John Gilmore has an obligation
to provide services on his machine, well, I gave up on Thorn a long time
ago. (In fact, I seem to recall a Dale Thorn I killfiled years ago on the
Extropians list...maybe I'm confusing his name with someone else, but it
sure rings a bell.)

I returned Sunday from several days away from my computer to find the
expected several hundred messages in my various IN baskets, but was
chagrinned to see just how many of them were pure garbage. Between the
"virtual Montgolfiering" of Don Wood and his critics, and the coprophilic
insults of Vulis, little of substance lay in between.

--Tim May

Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Timothy C. May wrote:
> At 3:05 AM +1300 12/4/96, Paul Foley wrote:
> >So Tim May's silence in response to Vulis's nonsense, while some
> >others came out in his favour "argues (not proves, just argues)
> >heavily in favor of Dimitri" too?  Yeah, sure!  Wanna buy a bridge?

> Actually, I've gotten several comments in e-mail to this effect, that if
> I'm not actively defending myself, maybe I'm guilty. Most were written
> roughly along the lines of:

[snippo]

> As to the ramblings of Dale Thorn about how John Gilmore has an obligation
> to provide services on his machine, well, I gave up on Thorn a long time
> ago. (In fact, I seem to recall a Dale Thorn I killfiled years ago on the
> Extropians list...maybe I'm confusing his name with someone else, but it
> sure rings a bell.)

Since I wasn't on the Internet before, the answer is no.

As to Dale insisting on Gilmore providing services, the answer to that
is clear if you actually read my posts, which you apparently claim to
have done, yet claim not to have done since you "gave up" a long time
ago.  Which is it, Tim?

Tim May writes on certain topics a la "Crypto Anarchy and Virtual
Communities" with a passion that is compelling, if not entirely
convincing, yet this "leader of cypherpunks" is pitifully out of his
element dealing with a truly rational person such as myself, since in
Tim's universe, emotion seems to be the more desirable substitute.

BTW, I never suggested guilt via not answering up to the list on any
topic.  I said it would have been clearer to the list subscribers if
John had explained things himself instead of having a plethora of
defenses coming from hacks like yourself, who don't represent John.

If you, Sandy, and the other offenders *really* want to keep the noise
down, then next time ask John directly for a reply, and if none is
forthcoming, say to the list *once*, "John will not answer up", etc.,
and let the subscribers draw their own conclusions from the silence,
instead of from your inane "defenses".