-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Sandy Sandfort said:
> Spineless "Anonymous" or "lain" or whomever wrote:
>> Grow a spine, Phil, you jellyfish.
>a) Anonymous fell for the oldest trick in book, he uncritically
>believed what he read in the newspaper. Missed my forwarded message
>from Phil, did you?
There are two possibilities. Either Phil is a jellyfish or he's just
a naive self-promoting snake. In either case the best possible
scenario is that Phil is the one who fell for the oldest trick in the
book. He assumed the reporter would simply cater to his overbloated
vanity and take Phil's representations at face value, report them
accurately and otherwise refuse to impose any ulterior motive or
agenda on those comments. Shame on Phil. Shame on the press? Maybe.
The rest of us have to take the reporter at face value. He/she/it was
the one who talked to Phil on this occasion, not us. Too bad Phil
gave it the ammo it needed. Too bad. Pride goeth before the fall and
all that.
I am sickened by the number of people, including Phil, using the
events of September 11 to promote their own agendas or otherwise get
some face time with a camera, a mic, or a press and then pleading
innocent later. At least have the stones to admit that your being a
Machiavellian slime if you get busted. Christ.
> b) Anyone who knows anything about what Phil has done in the face
> of the threats against him, has no right to call him a jellyfish.
> On the other hand, anyone who knows anything about Anonymous...oh,
> that's right, no one knows anything about Anonymous because he
> hides behind a pseudonym.
Oh, I know quite a bit about Phil and I have met him and talked with
him one on one extensively at least thrice.
I have every right to call him a jellyfish, especially when he is
being one and particularly given his former spinelike resistance in
the face of great personal risk. That Phil is gone. Has been for some
while. (I'll wager he doesn't pal around with you on a regular basis
anymore either, Sandy).
Dateline: Silicon Valley, "Programmer more impacted by the deaths of
5,500 complete strangers than everyone else." What a load of shit.
How did he EXPECT the article was going to come out in the BEST case?
And then there's Sandy. Sandy, I have watched you as a supposed
advocate of freedom, libertarian ideals, privacy, anonyminity,
consistently bad mouth about every anonymous poster on this list who
has anything of importance to say. It never fails around here that
you will attempt to use their Mixmaster expertise against them. That
is the worse kind of hypocrisy on your part and I'm sorry (and not so
sorry) that you don't see it.
>> None of you spineless dilettantes deserve
>> privacy or freedom...
>Everyone deserves privacy and freedom, even you, Mr. jellyfish.
Those who earn it deserve it, no one else. There is no privacy
welfare program here. Even less so now. The government is not going
to protect your privacy. The health care system is not going to
protect your privacy. The courts are not going to protect your
privacy. Anyone who believes there is some fundamental right of
privacy recognized in the United States is either in fantasy land or
has been taking too much Thorazine for the last 50 years. (Jim
Choate, are you awake? Time for some Choate-o-grams on the bill of
rights). A certain cryptographer PR maven of note once said "If
McDonald's gave away a free Big Mac in exchange for a DNA sample
there would be lines around the block." Sheep. Make your own privacy
you lazy idiots, or get none.
>> Zimmermann should have hit the lecture
>> circuit...
>Anonymous, please let us know where and when you will be lecturing
>next.
I have three talks in New York and one in Washington in the next 90
days.
>I'm sure we would all like attend one of your inspiring talks so
>that >we can learn how to be free by your example.
I'm sure you would like to, but I doubt you have gotten an invitation
to any of the three invitation only events.
>Give me a break.
You do not deserve one, at least not if you are as much of an
armchair "freedom fighter" as you appear in these eyes to be.
Sure, I have no doubt there are a series of Zimmermann apologists
here. I have little doubt that they will rush to Phil's aid. That
doesn't change the basic fact that Phil, like some kind of high
school graduate sports celebrity who has recently decided they are a
foreign policy expert and should be commenting to anyone who will
listen on the fate of Tibet or some other horseshit, decided he would
chime in about his own personal connection to September 11th. What a
big man everyone will think he is. Please.
Whine whine, the reporter misquoted me. Spare me.
Surprise, surprise he got burned (or didn't and is even more
spineless to shrink away from the backfire of his PR tactic). I have
no sympathy either way. I have no respect for that kind of behavior.
Nor should I. Despite the cute dissection of the article on this list
by Zimmermann Apologist #2 that reporter did not simply "make up" the
guilt line. Certainly, some liberities might have been taken with
poor-ole-harmless-Phil's dicussion (then again they may not have
been), but Zimmermann egged on the press. He got what he deserved if
he was misquoted as badly as represented here (which I doubt).
Grow a spine cypherpunks. Do something real. Attempting to snow
reporters to get yourself some press is not "something real."
- -lain
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.0.1
iQA/AwUBO6u/cv6o0E6piE+3EQLwogCglIRVXUd+CCfPLEzJP2o8cUccl1cAn2Zi
cb9vl+POmhOsPjF7V7Wx4eVQ
=L734
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
