From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 93 21:51:12 PDT
To: ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu (L. Detweiler)
Subject: Re: a desperate plea
In-Reply-To: <9310260308.AA10040@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Message-ID: <9310260446.AA04496@kropotkin.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


L. Detweiler writes:
> most of all, do not pollute the Constitution with your lies:

  I assume you also support the right to keep and bear arms. Good, cause
I'm coming over to put you out of your misery. You're like a horse with
a brain disease, I request that you be "shot" and removed from this list, or
prevented from posting.
 
> >The freedom to communicate in any way whatsoever, including
> >"pseudospoofing", is a Constitutional guarantee and part of the
> >foundation of this society.  
> 
> the Constitution specifically prohibits `high treason'. Or are we now
> against the Constitution? It's hard to keep track lately.

  No Treason sayeth Lysander Spooner.

[more idiotic ramblings of LD deleted]
> Part of the difficulty in catching him in the end was his total mastery
> of the techniques that have a striking similarity to what the
> Cypherpunks promote -- hidden credit, deception, disguise,
> impersonation, etc. He was a man who was so treacherous, he would truly
> not `stop at anything'. I'm sure he weaved such a majestic and
> convoluted `web of lies,' PRZ & the Cypherpunks would be proud. In the

   And he did it all without computers. Without cryptography. What your pea
brain fails to understand is that you can't solve social problems with
computers. It's like trying to ban guns to prevent crime, IT WON'T WORK.
Why should we all suffer because a few people will use cryptography and
anonymous remailers for evil deeds? Got that? Whatever Draconian measures
you implement to achieve your dreams of absolute accountability, they
simply WILL NOT WORK. Someone will find a way to circumvent them and commit
crimes. You're own real life example of a killer proves it.

> Another question for all the bastard apologists and moral relativists.
> Are you fundamentally opposed to me having the choice of screening

  No, get some better mail software then. Or write some damn code for
a change and stop ranting.

[more ranting deleted. I now see that my original assessment of
Detweiler after his "electronic democracy" was correct. Nothing but another
idealistic believer in the great society.]

> P.S. Ask all your revered fiction authors like Gibson and Sterling
> et.al. what they would think of your grotesque perversions. Be sure to
> explain it in *your* terms of `true and pure anonymity.' `a fundamental
> paradigm shift? sure, sounds great! right out of one of my own stories.'

  Methinks you've confused cypherpunks and CYBERPUNKS. Gibson and Sterling
couldn't rub 2-bits together if their life depended on it. Gibson
probably couldn't solve a linear algebraic equation either. Why should we
revere them? (especially since they are a rip-off of Vinge. True Names
and Fire Upon the Deep convey "internet" like sci-fi much better)


  I think it's time to check into a mental hospital, you're losing it.


-- Ray Cromwell        |    Engineering is the implementation of science;    --
-- EE/Math Student     |       politics is the implementation of faith.      --
-- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu  |                         - Zetetic Commentaries      --