Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list

> It is obvious to me that those who are waving the bloody flag of
> "censorship" are doing so for either of two reasons.  The ones to
> whom I am the most sympathetic are those who simply do not have
> a clear and coherent understanding of rights in an anarchistic,
> volunteeristic society.  

You need have no sympathy. Those members of this list see it as it 
is, a list that was supposed to be, in some small way, a "model" of 
an anarchistic discussion forum for the subject of cryptography, 
either technically (later split into coderpunks) or at a 
sociopolitical level. That was the intended direction of the list, it 
has rapidly disentigrated over recent months into a censored list 
where the elite post to the main list and anyone else is nearly 
always relegated to a seperate list for the crypto-untermenshcen.

> The ones for whom I have no sympathy are those whose obvious 
> goal is disruption of the Cypherpunks list and who are hiding
> behind a phoney interpretation of "free speech."

You may make as many excuses as you like, the bottom line is you have 
become what you profess to hate most, a censor. If having the right 
to post freely on a list that was supposed to operate as a free and 
open anarchic forum is not a valid interpretation of free speech I 
cannot envisage any more elegant example.
 
> I think both of these groups are intellectually dishonest in the
> extreme when it comes to telling others how this list should be
> run.  I doubt any of them would permit the sort of disruptive
> behavior that goes on here to go unchallenged in salons they
> sponsor in their own homes or on Net lists that they themselves 
> maintain.

If you want to talk about intellectual dishonesty try the following:

Imagine if you will a list, the original purpose of which was
to act as a free and open forum for discussion of cryptography and 
related issues. A list which proudly proclaims in its "welcome to 
the list" message:

We do not seek to prevent other people from
speaking about their experiences or their opinions.

Now imagine that list falling into a state of content based 
censorship and censorship based on an unspoken but ever present 
class structure, then ask yourself which list you know that most 
closely matches this description, it`s a pretty revealing exercise.

> This is a voluntary list folks.  We tried incivility and that did
> not work.  Right now we are experimenting with reasoned discourse
> in an atmosphere of interpersonal respect and good will. 

For "Reasoned discourse in an atmosphere of interpersonal respect and 
good will" read "content based censorship".

> If most list members like the change, it will continue.  If not, then we
> can go back to the swill or perhaps try something else.  In the
> meantime, get over it.  If you really like flames and spam, show
> John and me how it really should be done.  Start another list.  
> Of course squating and claim jumping appeal to the lazy a lot
> more than homesteading.

It is a foregone conclusion that the upper class of list members will 
have no dispute over the censorship and therefore the change will be 
permenant, it is a form of online ethnic cleansing whereby the lists 
clique of illuminati have taken it upon themselves to remove the 
elements of the list they feel endanger their position of superiority 
and respect, the point they have missed is that they have no 
credibility whatsoever after this incident, as well as a number of 
other such occurances and therefore are only isolating themselves 
into their own little world.

"cypherpunks will make the networks safe for censorship"
 

  Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security
       Paul Bradley, Paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
  Paul@crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul@cryptography.uk.eu.org    
       Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
      Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1
     "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk said:
> > I think both of these groups are intellectually dishonest in the
> > extreme when it comes to telling others how this list should be
> > run.  I doubt any of them would permit the sort of disruptive
> > behavior that goes on here to go unchallenged in salons they
> > sponsor in their own homes or on Net lists that they themselves 
> > maintain.
> 
> If you want to talk about intellectual dishonesty try the following:
> 
> Imagine if you will a list, the original purpose of which was
> to act as a free and open forum for discussion of cryptography and 
> related issues. A list which proudly proclaims in its "welcome to 
> the list" message:
> 
> We do not seek to prevent other people from
> speaking about their experiences or their opinions.
> 
> Now imagine that list falling into a state of content based 
> censorship and censorship based on an unspoken but ever present 
> class structure, then ask yourself which list you know that most 
> closely matches this description, it`s a pretty revealing exercise.

The exercise reveals to me that only by ignoring the first paragraph
of your example, the part that reads "Imagine if you will a list, 
the original purpose of which was to act as a free and open forum 
for discussion of cryptography and related issues." can you make
a claim of content based censorship. The purpose of this list was
and should be discussion of cryptography and related issues. The
fact that some people choose this as a forum for personal attacks
and blathering about issues that are not even vaguely related to
the discussion of cryptography and related issues does not make it
a proper forum for such communication.

> > This is a voluntary list folks.  We tried incivility and that did
> > not work.  Right now we are experimenting with reasoned discourse
> > in an atmosphere of interpersonal respect and good will. 
> 
> For "Reasoned discourse in an atmosphere of interpersonal respect and 
> good will" read "content based censorship".

For "voluntary list" read "voluntary list".

> 
> > If most list members like the change, it will continue.  If not, then we
> > can go back to the swill or perhaps try something else.  In the
> > meantime, get over it.  If you really like flames and spam, show
> > John and me how it really should be done.  Start another list.  
> > Of course squating and claim jumping appeal to the lazy a lot
> > more than homesteading.
> 
> It is a foregone conclusion that the upper class of list members will 
> have no dispute over the censorship and therefore the change will be 
> permenant, it is a form of online ethnic cleansing whereby the lists 
> clique of illuminati have taken it upon themselves to remove the 
> elements of the list they feel endanger their position of superiority 
> and respect, the point they have missed is that they have no 
> credibility whatsoever after this incident, as well as a number of 
> other such occurances and therefore are only isolating themselves 
> into their own little world.

The Big Lie once again. yadda yadda yadda "Censorship!" yadda yadda
yadda "No Credibility" yadda yadda yadda ad nauseum.

> 
> "cypherpunks will make the networks safe for censorship"

"Idiots will make the networks require censorship"

-- 
Kevin L. Prigge                     | Some mornings, it's just not worth
Systems Software Programmer         | chewing through the leather straps.
Internet Enterprise - OIT           | - Emo Phillips
University of Minnesota             |

Kevin L Prigge wrote:
> paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk said:
> > > I think both of these groups are intellectually dishonest in the
> > > extreme when it comes to telling others how this list should be
> > > run.  I doubt any of them would permit the sort of disruptive
> > > behavior that goes on here to go unchallenged in salons they
> > > sponsor in their own homes or on Net lists that they themselves 
> > > maintain.
> > 
> > If you want to talk about intellectual dishonesty try the following:
> > 
> > Imagine if you will a list, the original purpose of which was
> > to act as a free and open forum for discussion of cryptography and 
> > related issues. A list which proudly proclaims in its "welcome to 
> > the list" message:
> > 
> > We do not seek to prevent other people from
> > speaking about their experiences or their opinions.
> > 
> > Now imagine that list falling into a state of content based 
> > censorship and censorship based on an unspoken but ever present 
> > class structure, then ask yourself which list you know that most 
> > closely matches this description, it`s a pretty revealing exercise.
> 
> The exercise reveals to me that only by ignoring the first paragraph
> of your example, the part that reads "Imagine if you will a list, 
> the original purpose of which was to act as a free and open forum 
> for discussion of cryptography and related issues." can you make
> a claim of content based censorship. The purpose of this list was

Then why discussion of machine guns should be allowed here?

igor

Kevin L Prigge wrote:

>. The purpose of this list was
> and should be discussion of cryptography and related issues. 

  Your view seems to be contradictory to that of Sandy. Sandy has
stated that s/he does not censor the list according to crypto-
relevancy.

Toto

Kevin L Prigge wrote:
> paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk said:

> > "cypherpunks will make the networks safe for censorship"

> "Idiots will make the networks require censorship"

The line above this one says it all, doesn't it?  If I judge you to
be "an idiot", then, if I also have the power to shut you up, I can
not only shut off your "noise" from me, but also prevent anyone else
from hearing you as well.  That's the real beauty of censorship -
if I have the power, I can make you a non-person by preventing most
people from hearing you at all.  Oh, lovely, isn't it?

Dale Thorn wrote:
> 
> Kevin L Prigge wrote:
> > paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk said:
> 
> > > "cypherpunks will make the networks safe for censorship"
> 
> > "Idiots will make the networks require censorship"
> 
> The line above this one says it all, doesn't it?  If I judge you to
> be "an idiot", then, if I also have the power to shut you up, I can
> not only shut off your "noise" from me, but also prevent anyone else
> from hearing you as well.  That's the real beauty of censorship -
> if I have the power, I can make you a non-person by preventing most
> people from hearing you at all.  Oh, lovely, isn't it?
> 

Don't you like power, Dale?

	- Igor.

Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> Dale Thorn wrote:
> > Kevin L Prigge wrote:
> > > paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk said:

> > > > "cypherpunks will make the networks safe for censorship"

> > > "Idiots will make the networks require censorship"

> > The line above this one says it all, doesn't it?  If I judge you to
> > be "an idiot", then, if I also have the power to shut you up, I can
> > not only shut off your "noise" from me, but also prevent anyone else
> > from hearing you as well.  That's the real beauty of censorship -
> > if I have the power, I can make you a non-person by preventing most
> > people from hearing you at all.  Oh, lovely, isn't it?

> Don't you like power, Dale?

I have a great deal of respect for power.  When I was 6, I unwound a
coat hanger and put both ends into an electrical outlet.  All I
remember from that is something like a sledgehammer hitting me, and
I went backwards rather quickly.  And I never did it again.

But seriously, I was just telling the folks over the weekend, if I
had my hand on the button, a lot of people would die very quickly.
As in The Day The Earth Stood Still, a single act of aggression would
suffice to be immediately terminated.  The best place to begin, in
the USA at least, would be the public freeways.  There you have the
most acts of aggression in a short space, and the best pickings for
liquidation.  Give me the power, and I'll show you all those nifty
techno-ways of eliminating people that have been kept from the public
by our benevolent government ("sources and methods").

BTW, I don't give a damn about someone "cutting me off", since I'm
not aggressive enough (outside of my liquidation duties) to be bothered
by that in most cases.  I'm primarily concerned with vehicles who get
too close behind, who pass with no safety margin, etc.  I call these
people anal-compulsive (as opposed to anal-retentive).  You've seen
the videos on PBS, the various animal species whose male members
perform occasional "mounting" of others to intimidate.  There are a
large percentage of humans who try to do the same thing, demonstrating
that they (IMO) have no further need of their lives.

On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:

> Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> > Dale Thorn wrote:
> > > Kevin L Prigge wrote:
> > > > paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk said:
> 
> > > > > "cypherpunks will make the networks safe for censorship"
> 
> > > > "Idiots will make the networks require censorship"
> 
> > > The line above this one says it all, doesn't it?  If I judge you to
> > > be "an idiot", then, if I also have the power to shut you up, I can
> > > not only shut off your "noise" from me, but also prevent anyone else
> > > from hearing you as well.  That's the real beauty of censorship -
> > > if I have the power, I can make you a non-person by preventing most
> > > people from hearing you at all.  Oh, lovely, isn't it?
> 
> > Don't you like power, Dale?
> 
> I have a great deal of respect for power.  When I was 6, I unwound a
> coat hanger and put both ends into an electrical outlet.  All I
> remember from that is something like a sledgehammer hitting me, and
> I went backwards rather quickly.  And I never did it again.
> 
> But seriously, I was just telling the folks over the weekend, if I
> had my hand on the button, a lot of people would die very quickly.
> As in The Day The Earth Stood Still, a single act of aggression would
> suffice to be immediately terminated.  The best place to begin, in
> the USA at least, would be the public freeways.  There you have the
> most acts of aggression in a short space, and the best pickings for
> liquidation.  Give me the power, and I'll show you all those nifty
> techno-ways of eliminating people that have been kept from the public
> by our benevolent government ("sources and methods").
> 
> BTW, I don't give a damn about someone "cutting me off", since I'm
> not aggressive enough (outside of my liquidation duties) to be bothered
> by that in most cases.  I'm primarily concerned with vehicles who get
> too close behind, who pass with no safety margin, etc.  I call these
> people anal-compulsive (as opposed to anal-retentive).  You've seen
> the videos on PBS, the various animal species whose male members
> perform occasional "mounting" of others to intimidate.  There are a
> large percentage of humans who try to do the same thing, demonstrating
> that they (IMO) have no further need of their lives.
> 

Boy, it is a fucking Bitch living in that L.A. traffic, huh?

aga wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> > > Dale Thorn wrote:

> > But seriously, I was just telling the folks over the weekend, if I
> > had my hand on the button, a lot of people would die very quickly.
> > As in The Day The Earth Stood Still, a single act of aggression would
> > suffice to be immediately terminated.  The best place to begin, in
> > the USA at least, would be the public freeways.  There you have the
> > most acts of aggression in a short space, and the best pickings for
> > liquidation.  Give me the power, and I'll show you all those nifty
> > techno-ways of eliminating people that have been kept from the public
> > by our benevolent government ("sources and methods").
> >
> > BTW, I don't give a damn about someone "cutting me off", since I'm
> > not aggressive enough (outside of my liquidation duties) to be bothered
> > by that in most cases.  I'm primarily concerned with vehicles who get
> > too close behind, who pass with no safety margin, etc.  I call these
> > people anal-compulsive (as opposed to anal-retentive).  You've seen
> > the videos on PBS, the various animal species whose male members
> > perform occasional "mounting" of others to intimidate.  There are a
> > large percentage of humans who try to do the same thing, demonstrating
> > that they (IMO) have no further need of their lives.

> Boy, it is a fucking Bitch living in that L.A. traffic, huh?

I heard years ago that approximately 10% of the people on the street
are certifiably mentally unstable.  Multiply that by two at least for
Los Angeles (suburban L.A., actually, Hollywood for example is much
safer than Altadena or Westlake Village).

Quincy M.D. (the old TV show) did an excellent piece once on how a
person can more-or-less legally commit murder with a car, by passing
a deliberate act off as an "accident".  It's one area of our law
enforcement where the law (or rules) as stated by the state and as
enforced by the state cops don't even agree.

On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:

> aga wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> > > > Dale Thorn wrote:
> 
> > > But seriously, I was just telling the folks over the weekend, if I
> > > had my hand on the button, a lot of people would die very quickly.
> > > As in The Day The Earth Stood Still, a single act of aggression would
> > > suffice to be immediately terminated.

No trial, huh?

  The best place to begin, in
> > > the USA at least, would be the public freeways.  There you have the
> > > most acts of aggression in a short space, and the best pickings for
> > > liquidation.  Give me the power, and I'll show you all those nifty
> > > techno-ways of eliminating people that have been kept from the public
> > > by our benevolent government ("sources and methods").
> > >
> > > BTW, I don't give a damn about someone "cutting me off", since I'm
> > > not aggressive enough (outside of my liquidation duties) to be bothered
> > > by that in most cases.  I'm primarily concerned with vehicles who get
> > > too close behind, who pass with no safety margin, etc.  I call these
> > > people anal-compulsive (as opposed to anal-retentive).  You've seen
> > > the videos on PBS, the various animal species whose male members
> > > perform occasional "mounting" of others to intimidate.  There are a
> > > large percentage of humans who try to do the same thing, demonstrating
> > > that they (IMO) have no further need of their lives.
> 
> > Boy, it is a fucking Bitch living in that L.A. traffic, huh?
> 
> I heard years ago that approximately 10% of the people on the street
> are certifiably mentally unstable.  Multiply that by two at least for
> Los Angeles (suburban L.A., actually, Hollywood for example is much
> safer than Altadena or Westlake Village).
> 

Just carry a gun all of the time when you go over there.

> Quincy M.D. (the old TV show) did an excellent piece once on how a
> person can more-or-less legally commit murder with a car, by passing
> a deliberate act off as an "accident".  It's one area of our law
> enforcement where the law (or rules) as stated by the state and as
> enforced by the state cops don't even agree.
> 

Maybe it is best to travel only on the net any more.
The highways are deathtraps.

aga wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > aga wrote:
> > > On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> > > > > Dale Thorn wrote:
> >
> > > > But seriously, I was just telling the folks over the weekend, if I
> > > > had my hand on the button, a lot of people would die very quickly.
> > > > As in The Day The Earth Stood Still, a single act of aggression would
> > > > suffice to be immediately terminated.
> 
> No trial, huh?

Good question.  The law we have right now already assumes that there
are situations where a criminal will not go peacefully, if at all.
In some countries (years ago?) such as England, bobbies were known
to not carry firearms for ordinary street duty.  Am I right?  But
here in the USA, that would be unthinkable.

So my proposal doesn't eliminate the responsibility portion of law
enforcement.  I'd say, if a target were eliminated thru negligence,
malfeasance, or other wrongdoing under "color of law" or whatever,
let the courts handle that as they do now.

My suggestion would give the law enforcers the ability to dispense
the first level of justice expeditiously, which they cannot accomplish
now due to all of the red tape and the corrupt legal system (lawyers
specialize in getting chronic offenders off, particularly "traffic"
offenses).  By transferring a major portion of the bureaucracy to
the pencil pushers, we can free up the street cops to do what they
do best, namely bust or eliminate criminals.

I dare say that the downside of this is much less pleasant than the
virtual anarchy (in the bad sense) we suffer now.  If the police get
out of control, A.P. will arrive just in time to plug a few of those
holes, so to speak.  Ideally, future robotics should be able to
provide something like Gort (sp?) to take the place of human officers,
given advances in the kind of pattern matching needed to deter
aggression and the like.  Those who don't make it past the robots,
well, the rest of us can learn to behave, and we'll be much better
off when we do.

On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:

> aga wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > > aga wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > > > > Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> > > > > > Dale Thorn wrote:
> > >
> > > > > But seriously, I was just telling the folks over the weekend, if I
> > > > > had my hand on the button, a lot of people would die very quickly.
> > > > > As in The Day The Earth Stood Still, a single act of aggression would
> > > > > suffice to be immediately terminated.
> > 
> > No trial, huh?
> 
> Good question.  The law we have right now already assumes that there
> are situations where a criminal will not go peacefully, if at all.
> In some countries (years ago?) such as England, bobbies were known
> to not carry firearms for ordinary street duty.  Am I right?  But
> here in the USA, that would be unthinkable.
> 
> So my proposal doesn't eliminate the responsibility portion of law
> enforcement.  I'd say, if a target were eliminated thru negligence,
> malfeasance, or other wrongdoing under "color of law" or whatever,
> let the courts handle that as they do now.
> 

Just who is doing the eliminating?

> My suggestion would give the law enforcers the ability to dispense
> the first level of justice expeditiously, which they cannot accomplish
> now due to all of the red tape and the corrupt legal system (lawyers
> specialize in getting chronic offenders off, particularly "traffic"
> offenses).  By transferring a major portion of the bureaucracy to
> the pencil pushers, we can free up the street cops to do what they
> do best, namely bust or eliminate criminals.
> 

Cops can never be trusted to "dispense justice," and half of the
cops are themselves criminals in what they do.  Most cops steal
evidence and lie like crazy in Court.  All they want is a conviction,
and it mattters not how it is obtained.

> I dare say that the downside of this is much less pleasant than the
> virtual anarchy (in the bad sense) we suffer now.  If the police get
> out of control, A.P. will arrive just in time to plug a few of those
> holes, so to speak.  Ideally, future robotics should be able to
> provide something like Gort (sp?) to take the place of human officers,
> given advances in the kind of pattern matching needed to deter
> aggression and the like.  Those who don't make it past the robots,
> well, the rest of us can learn to behave, and we'll be much better
> off when we do.
> 

I would trust robots more than humanoids.

aga wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > aga wrote:
> > > On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Dale Thorn wrote:
> > > > > > But seriously, I was just telling the folks over the weekend, if I
> > > > > > had my hand on the button, a lot of people would die very quickly.
> > > > > > As in The Day The Earth Stood Still, a single act of aggression would
> > > > > > suffice to be immediately terminated.
> > > No trial, huh?
> > Good question.  The law we have right now already assumes that there
> > are situations where a criminal will not go peacefully, if at all.
> > In some countries (years ago?) such as England, bobbies were known
> > to not carry firearms for ordinary street duty.  Am I right?  But
> > here in the USA, that would be unthinkable.
> > So my proposal doesn't eliminate the responsibility portion of law
> > enforcement.  I'd say, if a target were eliminated thru negligence,
> > malfeasance, or other wrongdoing under "color of law" or whatever,
> > let the courts handle that as they do now.
> Just who is doing the eliminating?
> > My suggestion would give the law enforcers the ability to dispense
> > the first level of justice expeditiously, which they cannot accomplish
> > now due to all of the red tape and the corrupt legal system (lawyers
> > specialize in getting chronic offenders off, particularly "traffic"
> > offenses).  By transferring a major portion of the bureaucracy to
> > the pencil pushers, we can free up the street cops to do what they
> > do best, namely bust or eliminate criminals.

> Cops can never be trusted to "dispense justice," and half of the
> cops are themselves criminals in what they do.  Most cops steal
> evidence and lie like crazy in Court.  All they want is a conviction,
> and it mattters not how it is obtained.

All true.  But I'm not suggesting the creation of anything new here.
Cops already carry guns and kill people.  All I'm suggesting is that
they be empowered to kill when:
1) The crime is aggression against another person or persons;
2) The evidence is so solid (recorded?) that the officer (who risks
   being prosecuted if he kills unjustifiably) can carry out the
   enforcement without undue apprehension;
3) These things are reviewed by the elected representatives of the
   people, to make sure there's no hanky-panky going on.

> > I dare say that the downside of this is much less pleasant than the
> > virtual anarchy (in the bad sense) we suffer now.  If the police get
> > out of control, A.P. will arrive just in time to plug a few of those
> > holes, so to speak.  Ideally, future robotics should be able to
> > provide something like Gort (sp?) to take the place of human officers,
> > given advances in the kind of pattern matching needed to deter
> > aggression and the like.  Those who don't make it past the robots,
> > well, the rest of us can learn to behave, and we'll be much better
> > off when we do.
> 
> I would trust robots more than humanoids.

The Gort (sp?) robot is a perfect example, and I don't think it's
all that many years away.

On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:

> Dale Thorn wrote:
> > 
> > Kevin L Prigge wrote:
> > > paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk said:
> > 
> > > > "cypherpunks will make the networks safe for censorship"
> > 
> > > "Idiots will make the networks require censorship"
> > 
> > The line above this one says it all, doesn't it?  If I judge you to
> > be "an idiot", then, if I also have the power to shut you up, I can
> > not only shut off your "noise" from me, but also prevent anyone else
> > from hearing you as well.  That's the real beauty of censorship -
> > if I have the power, I can make you a non-person by preventing most
> > people from hearing you at all.  Oh, lovely, isn't it?
> > 
> 
> Don't you like power, Dale?
> 
> 	- Igor.
> 

Power corrupts, in some instances.

On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, aga wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> 
> > Dale Thorn wrote:
> > > 
> > > Kevin L Prigge wrote:
> > > > paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk said:
> > > 
> > > > > "cypherpunks will make the networks safe for censorship"
> > > 
> > > > "Idiots will make the networks require censorship"
> > > 
> > > The line above this one says it all, doesn't it?  If I judge you to
> > > be "an idiot", then, if I also have the power to shut you up, I can
> > > not only shut off your "noise" from me, but also prevent anyone else
> > > from hearing you as well.  That's the real beauty of censorship -
> > > if I have the power, I can make you a non-person by preventing most
> > > people from hearing you at all.  Oh, lovely, isn't it?
> > > 
> > 
> > Don't you like power, Dale?
> > 
> > 	- Igor.
> > 
> 
> Power corrupts, in some instances.


Instances where the power is concentratted to one individual
or small group of individual....