From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 1995 07:48:00 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: corporate bashing
Message-ID: <199512252215.XAA07650@utopia.hacktic.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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

Fred seems to have been slipping through my filters in recent 
days. Though I usually trash any message containing a reference 
to him, I thought that this latest escalation into the 
ionosphere of net-sillies begs to be brought to heel...

On 24 Dec 95 at 17:20, Fred Cohen wrote:

> and that anonymity should be used as an escape from
> responsibility for what they do and say.  If you want to
> remain free to speak your mind, you have to become
> responsible in at least two ways:
> 
> 	1 - You must top slandering people.
> 	2 - You must stop using anonymity as a way to avoid being 
>           responsible.
> 
> When I say must, I am not intending to mean anything less. 
> If the cypherpunks continue to do these two things, they will
> rapidly find that they are doing more to destroy all of our
> rights to free speech in the Internet than they ever did to
> encourage freedom of expression.

There are several things wrong with this, but first, just on
the surface: Fred has now dropped his cyberdrawers and stands
before us displaying the ugly engine of his manhood, the handle
by which he maintains a grip on his pointless existence. He
reveals himself to be yet another in that small, tired parade
of self-appointed lightning rods -- people with so little of
import in their lives that they have to resort to trolling for
what they can claim are offenses against them, then flex the
borrowed, imagined musculature of mindless law to rise in
self-righteous threats of exercise of vindictive wrath. 

This is worse than "My big brother will kick your ass!" It is
like a 90-pound weakling going to the beach with a large but
retarded cousin in tow. The idea is to troll to get sand 
kicked in his face, then to point to the drooling cousin and 
use him as a lever to gain and exercise control over the 
hapless dupes of the ruse.

Freds have existed on BBS's, and before the technological age 
in most small clubs and societies. In the Internet they show up 
in newsgroups and on mailing lists, and when crossed they 
ALWAYS descend to threats of legal action. So predictable, so 
utterly dull and unimaginative, they are like the party guest 
who has that inappropriate laugh, who doesn't seem to notice 
that pairs of people are together, who approaches people oddly 
and, in the end, makes a scene and reveals himself to be a 
complete fruitcake. Unmoderated fission looking for a place to 
fulminate.

Fred, you've come to the wrong place. If you want to be
ignored, just pack your terminal and stay home with the
sitcoms. Noone asked you to interject your trolls and threats
here. You invited yourself, and whatever you are suffering is 
of your own creation.

Speaking of Freds brings me to a more interesting aspect of 
this nonsense: How do we know there is only one Fred? Fred 
doesn't sign his messages...  oh-oh. This attack of deja vu 
feels like I've had it before.

Why do I get the feeling that Fred is about to embarrass 
himself terribly by blurting out some of the poison that fills 
his soul? Let him who hath not slandered cast the first suit.


We Jurgar Din
(that will have to suffice: I do not yet live in a free country)

+"The battle, Sir, is not to the strong alone. It is to the+
+vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, Sir, we have no +
+election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now  +
+too late to retire from the contest." -Patrick Henry 1775 +


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

iQBVAwUBMN8TVEjw99YhtpnhAQFDngH/cTzEDHzxYZ7Z9jOmoALxaIdxpgpvlIr+
/zsZndz1KfQlqUunH5i7YsJS7tm/XOsrRcWQgKQEr9WaI8wRgrqh5g==
=Hl/v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----