The response (or, perhaps in many cases, the lack of it) on this list to the
discovery of the amazing fraud of the forgery of (at least) the 1995 version of
the Cypherpunks archive has been, well, amazing. I get the impression that
there has been a certain...lack of enthusiasm for this task. At least, not
nearly enough useful commentary.
No, I don't necessarily expect that the forgers are still here, but maybe their
ideological and political 'allies' remain. Put simply, maybe 'statists' didn't
and don't like AP, and they want to do anything possible to delay or defeat it.
And, they know or guess that some of their ilk were presumably acting in 1995,
engaging in discussings that the government (?) eventually wanted to conceal.
They did not want to leave a not-so-paper trail. Their ideological brethren on
CP, today, if any, want to continue to conceal and protect those 1995, and the
data forgery that subsequently happened.
Take this with the levity I intend. I ask that each of you provide suggestions
as to what to try. But I don't want to give you an easy out by saying that if
you cannot think of anything you, personally, can accomplish, you are excused.
If you have a good idea, and you throw it out to us, somebody else might like
it, add to it, and maybe even accomplish it. Think of this as brainstorming,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorming .
At the same time, some of you might be reticent: Eventually, I believe we will
identify those responsible for misconduct on the list in 1995, but also those
people who forged and faked the archives. I want to expose the people who,
now, are in league with them. Think of this as a Rorschach test. You will
likely be judged, by others, based on the credibility of the proposals you
make.
I have already identified the problem, and made a number of suggestions. I'd
say it's YOUR turn.
>From the article on brainstorming:
"Osborn's method:
Osborn claimed that two principles contribute to "ideative efficacy," these
being:
- Defer judgment,
- Reach for quantity. [6]
Following these two principles were his four general rules of brainstorming,
established with intention to :
- reduce social inhibitions among group members.
- stimulate idea generation.
- increase overall creativity of the group.
- Go for quantity: This rule is a mean of enhancing divergent production,
aiming at facilitation of problem solution through the maxim quantity breeds
quality. The assumption is that the greater the number of ideas generated the
bigger the chance of producing a radical and effective solution.
- Withhold criticism: In brainstorming, criticism of ideas generated should
be put 'on hold'. Instead, participants should focus on extending or adding to
ideas, reserving criticism for a later 'critical stage' of the process. By
suspending judgment, participants will feel free to generate unusual ideas.
- Welcome wild ideas: To get a good long list of suggestions, wild ideas are
encouraged. They can be generated by looking from new perspectives and
suspending assumptions. These new ways of thinking might give you better
solutions.
- Combine and improve ideas:As suggested by the slogan "1+1=3". It is
believed to stimulate the building of ideas by a process of association. [6]
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
| |
Brainstorming
In other words, brainstorming is a situation where a group of people meet to
generate new ideas and solutions ar...
|
|
|
