cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1996-11-04 - Re: FW: Dr. Vulis is not on cypherpunks any more [RANT]

Header Data

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 2770b392c0047333e85ce91a4f29cdbbaa3f3effed7fc2be22d3a73b85e8d86e
Message ID: <327E0677.6618@gte.net>
Reply To: <3.0b28.32.19961103181709.0071c978@mail.io.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-11-04 15:09:39 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 07:09:39 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 07:09:39 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: FW: Dr. Vulis is not on cypherpunks any more [RANT]
In-Reply-To: <3.0b28.32.19961103181709.0071c978@mail.io.com>
Message-ID: <327E0677.6618@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Greg Broiles wrote:
> At 03:08 PM 11/3/96 -0800, blanc <blancw@cnw.com> wrote:
> >Vulis did everything to set himself up for what he got, did he not.

Am I missing something, or do some people just not get it?

Nobody cares about the "Doctor" other than his personal friends, which cypherpunks as
a list is not.

What *does* matter is what this issue did to everyone else.

Remember the old adage, regurgitated frequently by USA Today, L.A. Times, etc.?
"x number of people are willing to give up some of their freedoms to stop crime" ad
nauseam, even though it says further on in the paragraph that "it probably won't do
any good anyway".  Yes, they actually print that crap.

So now cypherpunks is in the same boat.  Enacting censorship that doesn't accomplish
the stated purpose.  So if it doesn't accomplish the stated purpose, and Doctor Vulis
can post anyway, what was the *real* reason, or to look at it another way, what's the
next thing to be enacted to further tighten the screws on the "Doctor", and add more
limits to freedom?

Thread