1994-02-17 - Re: Enuf is enuf!

Header Data

From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: fd272f50c43809aafb51c7d19deb837f55480cca9be710067f74143e11e4c7f5
Message ID: <199402172221.OAA09714@mail.netcom.com>
Reply To: <940217204022_75260.1646_CHL81-1@CompuServe.COM>
UTC Datetime: 1994-02-17 22:20:50 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 14:20:50 PST

Raw message

From: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 94 14:20:50 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Enuf is enuf!
In-Reply-To: <940217204022_75260.1646_CHL81-1@CompuServe.COM>
Message-ID: <199402172221.OAA09714@mail.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Bruce Dovala writes:

> I _pay_ to read what's on this list. I was hoping that it would concern
> cryptography, remailers, etc. Detweiler was gone for a time. Now
> apparently it's the current fashion to flame him since he's returned. I'm
> not gonna pay to read rants against him. Do _something_ or talk in
> private. Does any of this shit belong on the list? And should I have to
> pay for it?

Hey. like, I pay to read what's on this list, and, like, I'm getting
really tired of fuck-wads ranting about their being too much ranting,
and, like, you know, I'm like not going to take it anymore. Read me?

---end of all-too-common rant---

Explanation of above rant: I'm not singling my colleague Bruce out for
criticism, but this business of people complaining that the List is
straying from what _they_ want to hear about that day is
wrong-headed. Especially stuff about "I pay to read this list and...."

The recent "flames" about Detweiler have been about the extremely
important issues of remailer policy, handling of mailbombs, options
for screening, advisability of screening and blocking, etc. The
discussion has been remarkably free of flames qua flames against poor
Larry himself, as 90% of us take it as a given that he's gone 'round
the bend.

The List talks about what people write about, period.

The current discussion about remailer policy, source screening, pros
and cons of these views, etc., is a whole lot more timely and relevant
than discussing "cryptography," if by cryptography one means the
eights rehashing of DES, the fifteenth debate about sources of random
numbers, or the twenty-third explanation of how PGP works.

Meanwhile, anyone is free to raise new issues. Or even old ones. Those
who want to respond, will. The democratic market in action.

But please don't attempt to "shame" others into not talking about some
subject just because it's not what you want to hear about that day.
Just delete messages you don't want to see. If, for some reason, you
have to pay some outrageous amount per message (as Prodigy and others
have been known to do), then this list is probably not for you.

Or find a better Internet provider.

--Tim May

Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power:2**859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.