-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 09/08/2016 10:03 PM, Mirimir wrote:
> On 09/08/2016 07:39 PM, Steve Kinney wrote:
>> On 09/05/2016 12:15 PM, Александр wrote:


>> Well that's odd.  I wonder what it's about?  Splitting the list
>> into what?  Two with different themes?  One Moderated and one
>> Unmoderated?
> 
> There are many lists out there for stuff that Александр and Zenaan
> are posting. It's not that cypherpunk is apolitical. Rather, it's
> that stuff which simply bashes one side or the other, but has no
> particular connection to crypto and its social/economic/political
> role/potential is just plainly off-topic.

Sounds right to me.

- From my own posting history it's clear that I don't mind pushing
content that addresses the methods of practical politics, and some of
the theory behind same.  The connection of this to crypto etc. is that
it illustrates contexts in which crypto (and by extension pretty much
all network security considerations) can be productively used to
support political means and ends.  Hence relevant to threat models,
product designs, education and support activities for crypto-centric
applications.

So far I'm not getting flamed for that.

>> If the latter, that's a perilous course.  One sees a lot of
>> "twin" lists and such that are one sterile and stereotyped, the
>> other totally overrun with tards.  Because once upon a time, half
>> or more of the people on the original list who took an interest
>> in keeping it alive /without/ censorship bailed, and those who
>> stayed behind were gradually overwhelmed.
> 
> There's no need to do anything with the cypherpunks list. If
> people object to off-topic crap, they can say so. If people object
> to being criticized for posting off-topic crap, they can deal with
> it or leave. That's just how unmoderated lists work.

Also sounds right to me.  Don't let's pretend we can't do it - some of
the subscribers on this list are veterans of USENET.

"Cypherpunks of the world unite - You have nothing to lose but your
barbed wire!"

;o)



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJX0hu7AAoJEECU6c5XzmuqsXMH/2426cTwDfDa9EoI5ELN2juP
iyaTx3fgPAwOj0OZoL3JL5roG3AMX3RuCdYxSx39snO90U3D42V7Zhtz5uvQV9ba
Qu0stk3EeqP9u5NqauriLXWD1imYNrW2clwjV+OoSxsQlZHB1ZBwgb/teY6765Oo
xHieE3zUBJ+3r/lVTfiTcSgHGItIi4ToP/xi//asw5Tmwg7rhykyoPAY5fHIcKUm
mOj9E4nJM2A5vH45kVDnlaSpQC/fxlhKADa3KClXSvXkmxEys/ZBB58tmD4Td/7M
5/QhED2rAJ1rJFwZdC663M0wtwyH3t3LHhjDxrCeUyn2EOqX7fmDMQDDXlEZFe8=
=p2J4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Reply via email to