Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

[xorcist]

>
> oh oh oh... so much private information and WHAT an information we
> should start LAving you, xorcist. Just lAving you!!! What a holy man we
> got

Private? Fuck you're paranoid.

I don't consider what I do for a living, or otherwise, private. My name,
location, who I date.. those things are private.

I didn't offer the info. In fact, I tried to ignore the question. But I
was asked. So I answered.

Within reason I'm an open book. I'm no holy man, either.

I'm neither am I a petulant child.

> Yeah, xorcist! Yeah! That's why you are on this list - hitting the
> "nerves" and trying to brainwash people.

Yup, that's what I'm doing. Trying to brainwash people.

Let me tell you something. If I were trying to brainwash people, I
wouldn't be fucking around on an internet list. I'd probably try starting
some type of religious cult. But it would have to face to face.. person to
person.. brainwashing is fundamentally about person-to-person interaction,
cult of personality type shit.

Text communication, but its nature, isn't really susceptible to that.

> So you are not gonna succeed. There are Invincible GUARDS here on the list
> for suckers like you. Zenaan and Juan are their names.

This is quite interesting to me. So, if I disagree with the Invincible
Guard Juan on some things, then I'm a CIA enemy.

That sounds quite like some of the most unbelievable brainwashing I've
ever heard. I mean, it fits the bill.

Disagree with the all-powerful, invincible leader, and you're the enemy. A
shadowy enemy, who can't be trusted at all. Satan's henchman, and such.

Fuck maybe I'm wrong about the brainwashing with text. Juan, I know you're
good at dissecting text, but I didn't realize you were THAT good.

Kudos. Keep these nutters on list and distracted with cross-posted news
sources. Better than letting them roam the streets.

Razer, Juan.. I sincerely apologize. I thought you guys were just posting
bullshit. I had no idea you were performing a public service.

My bad, dudes.

> However, i know that you won't (in the near future), 'cause your masters
> won't let you. So, we will enjoy a few more knockouts for you.

Riight. More self-supporting paranoia. Here's the beauty of your delusion:

If I chose to leave the list, then I'd have done so because I got found
out as CIA.

If I don't choose to leave, then its because my CIA masters won't let me.

lol.

You know, there is a principle of logic -- one that Juan would probably be
able to tell you about, if you care to listen -- that a position that has
no criteria which COULD refute it, is necessarily illogical.

Meh.. whatever.. you're out of the depth, guy.

Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

[Александр]

2016-09-21 7:55 GMT+03:00 :

> 1. I act as mentor for some cognitively disabled adults. Mostly in the way
> of
> helping them find coping strategies for their difficulties. Providing a
> measure of friendship and companionship
>
> 2. I do this on top of my day job, which is in cloud infrastructure type
> shit.
>
> 3. As a hobby, try to find time to program, keep my skills up somewhat.
> In the past, I've designed deniable encryption protocols, and implemented
> tools to do it.
>

oh oh oh... so much private information and WHAT an information we
should start LAving you, xorcist. Just lAving you!!! What a holy man we got
on the list... on day three he opens his hErt in front of all of us.
Come on, cia dude. Cut of your bullshit. You are not gonna buy followers by
acting like that.
___

xorcist to Juan:
> i hit the nerv
>

Yeah, xorcist! Yeah! That's why you are on this list - hitting the "nerves"
and trying to brainwash people. Well, there were much better attempts
before you, fucker. We got a vast experience and great Hearts and Minds. So
you are not gonna succeed. There are Invincible GUARDS here on the list for
suckers like you. Zenaan and Juan are their names.
So just DIS-appear exactly the way you appeared here.
that's the only way for you.

However, i know that you won't (in the near future), 'cause your masters
won't let you. So, we will enjoy a few more knockouts for you.

Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

[xorcist]

>
> Now, here's your fallacy.

And, let me also say.. your description of the human thought process is
all wrong. :)

Consider it this way. When someone walks up to you, and sticks out their
hand to shake hands.. you respond by reaching out and shaking hands.

You're not processing it all the way you described. You don't think "Oh,
this person wants to greet me, I should respond accordingly."

That doesn't happen. At all.

What actually happens is, their body language communicates to you that
they want to shake hands, and the learned response kicks in..
automatically.. and you reach out your hand, before you've thought much of
anything.

That is why Derren's "interrupt" mechanism works. You watch for a person
on the street who is in deep thought, probably remembering something ..
memory is an activity that engages the subconscious. Then you interrupt
them, and get them to shake hands.. they'll respond, also subconsciously..
and then instead of going with the normal routine of letting go of the
hand and letting them run their "normal hand shake routine" you do
something different, and you quite literally inject a new thought into
their minds.

The programming techniques Derren demonstrates, and explains are used
widely in sales, in public speaking, and so on. Not everyone is
susceptible to them. But many are.

Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

[xorcist]

> 2016-09-21 3:33 GMT+03:00 juan :
>
> Oh... what a deadly punch/es, Juan! (one of)
> The poor new CIA troll xorcist (substituting the SDW guy) starts to
> understand why his fellow man (SDW) failed on the list with his cheap
> US/antihuman pseudophilosophical propaganda.
> :P
>
> Lets see whom they will send next.
>

I absolutely love it when you nutters call me CIA or some shit. Fucking
hilarious.

See, now THIS is what I mean when I said I'm here for the lulz..

Let me guess, whenever you see a black van on the highway you think 'they'
are following you, right?

Wait wait.. no, no.. they only use black vans in the movies, right? In
real life they use WHITE vans. Yeah, thats the ticket.

Right.

fucken hell..

Dude, if I was CIA, I'm sure I'd have a lot better things to do than argue
with you fucking assholes. And if they dont, then that sure as hell
explains the recent god damn bombings and shit for the last few decades,
don't it?

In fact, I'm not EVEN CIA, and I have a lot better things to do. I'm burnt
out lately, so I've been slacking.

Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

[xorcist]

> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:40:09PM -, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
> Now, here's your fallacy. Because we humans are of course acting
> rationally under pressure. Take Juan's give-me-your-money example: in
> order to actually hand out your money you need to understand my
> intentions, you need to know that I know what you might know etc, and
> then act accordingly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdYgEDSm7E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q2KGGMc1EM

Don't be so sure.

>
> This is rationality at work.

> THAT is free will.

Poke around on Youtube and watch a bunch of Derren's stuff. Watch how he
MAKES people make choices that, to them, feel entirely free.

Listen to him, as he teaches you how it works, WHY it works, and get an
understanding of the limits of rational, conscious free will.

Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

[xorcist]

>> You're like autistic or something.
>
>
>   Sure. And being gay is a disease that is cured with
>   electroshocks and lobotomies.


Hit a nerve, did I? Sorry. No judgments. If its correct, it just means you
just think differently. It's not even a big deal. For the purposes here,
it just means you'll tend to take discussions in a more literal way.

>   "Autistic" - you just keep polishing your pseudo scientific
>   garbage eh. Now you are firmly in the grounds of fascist
>   'psychiatric' 'science'.

lol. Dude, my niece has Asperger's. She's brilliant, talented, and I love
her - and there is no 'fascist psychiatry' involved. Her life, and her
relationships with her parents and others all benefited when the diagnosis
was realized, and appropriate communications techniques used.

>> You focus on the words, but seem to
>> have difficulty actually relating to the underlying scenarios or
>> seeing the dynamics of human relationships within those scenarios.
>> It's all this bullshit about "the logic" of morality. Bugger off with
>> that nonsense.
>
>   Sure. If such an alpha master of intelectual thought like you
>   says so, I will obey.

Oh come now. Now you're just being butt-hurt. You've called what I've
written bullshit numerous times and I didn't get all shitty about it.

And I don't "alpha" towards anyone. If I did, I wouldn't be so quick to
insult myself, say you have the bigger dick, and so on.

I don't play those games. I just recognize them.

But, when I disagree, I say so. And I defend my position and state things
how I see it. You are, of course, free to disagree and that's fine.

Like I said, I don't have enemies.

>> But they are still a representation social in-group/out-group dynamics
>
>   I bow to your superior wisdom, massa

Well stand the fuck up then.

>
>   Sure. Violence is wrong according to pacifists, but allowing
>   people to be killed, including oneself, is 'right' - I laugh my
>   ass off at the STUPIDITY of it.
>
>   Feel free to lecture me again with that kind of stupidity as if
>   it wasn't sheer stupidity...

Don't misrepresent me. I never said I thought it was right. I never said I
was a pacifist to that level.

We're talking about morality, and the ways it gets interpreted.
Specifically, how morality can be objective, or at least not relative --
and yet still get interpreted differently by different cultures and
people.

There are pacifists which interpret it that way however, and I'm just
acknowledging an interpretation that is different my own, without
denigrating it. Something you seem unwilling to do.

>   So, first you bring up a topic. Then you accuse ME of bringing
>   up the topic...YOU brought up. And now the problem is that I
>   'zeroed in' on it.
>
>   Oh, and if I mention that YOU brought the topic up, since, you
>   know, you accused me of doing it, then "This is all about some
>   mental dick-measuring contest"

No. The mental dick measuring comment was because you specifically made a
comment about "quitting while I'm ahead" which would be fine as an idiom,
except you also made it a point to parenthesize (but I never was) ..
indicating you see this as a contest.

I also already addressed the other point, trying to indicate how I meant
my comment, but I'll do so more clearly.

YOU'RE RIGHT. I PHRASED THAT PISS-POORLY AND WAS MISTAKEN.


>
>   Why would I bother 'thinking' about it when such a great
>   philosopher like you has it all figured out and is teaching us
>   poor betas?

Poor betas? I never referred to you like that. I don't claim to have all
the answers, either. I'm just giving my opinion on stuff, and the way I
see things.

You could have engaged me with "Well, that's interesting. I never thought
it of that way. I think this way, for these reasons."

Instead, you've advanced no real ideas of your own, and only proceeded in
attacking mine. It's a good tactic for a debate on your part, and I'll
engage. This sort of thing is helpful to me, because it gives me an
opportunity to focus on minutia and clarify.


>> That's why indentured servants rebelled. They had HOPE,
>
>
>   I'm glad they voted for obama!

Heh. That's actually kind of funny. They probably would have.

>>
>> A true slave, born into it? There is no hope. No one ever gets free.
>> It isn't even a concept to freely think about.
>
>
>   Nope it isn't. Now I get it. Thank you massa!
>
>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_slaves_in_the_United_States
>
>   In xorcist's Real Reality there are no fugitive slaves.

Of course there were fugitive slaves.

I already said in another message that there were a few strong-minded
types that could resist the fear, think freely, and so on.

Again just because something is possible for the FEW doesn't mean its
possible for EVERYONE.

I'm not interested, particularly, in tailoring a political theory to what
favors the intellectual, physical, or other 

Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

[Tom]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:40:09PM -, xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
> But for real life, when you get beaten as a slave all day, it AFFECTS YOUR
> THOUGHTS.
> 
> When you work a dreary ass job, barely get enough sleep, having your very
> dreams filled up with visions of monotonous days at work.. it AFFECTS YOUR
> MIND.
> 
> And when life and death are on the line, when hormones and adrenaline
> dump, YOU DON'T FUCKING THINK.

Now, here's your fallacy. Because we humans are of course acting
rationally under pressure. Take Juan's give-me-your-money example: in
order to actually hand out your money you need to understand my
intentions, you need to know that I know what you might know etc, and
then act accordingly.

This is rationality at work. It works fast, so fast that we don't notice
it. In fact, what most people (and I suspect yourself as well) think is
THINKING when they decide something is wrong. A human being always
decides all things almost instantly. What follows, and what we
misinterpret as "thinking", is that we a) try to understand our decision
or b) try to find arguments why we decided as we did.

At this point you might counter that other mammals brains work similar,
like lions or dogs or whatever. Yes. But there's a difference: we humans
are able to revise that decision. That is, we decide on something (e.g.
kill that slow grandma on the lane in front of me), then reason about
this decision and come to the conclusion that we won't do it.

THAT is free will.


Tom

PS: and forgive me my bad english, I hope it was understandable.

Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

[juan]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 02:33:10 -
xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:

> > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 23:40:09 -
> > xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:
> >
> > Dude, that has nothing to do with any 'group'. If you are an
> > attacker, then your victims have every right to defend
> > themselves. That's the basic logic of morality.
> 
> Ya know, after I hit send on that last message, I knew you'd start off
> with this.
> 
> You're like autistic or something. 


Sure. And being gay is a disease that is cured with
electroshocks and lobotomies. Oh and you are a master of
'biological' political 'theory'. No, not just ivory tower
theory. What you say is REAL REALITY (TM)

"Autistic" - you just keep polishing your pseudo scientific
garbage eh. Now you are firmly in the grounds of fascist
'psychiatric' 'science'.



> You focus on the words, but seem to
> have difficulty actually relating to the underlying scenarios or
> seeing the dynamics of human relationships within those scenarios.
> It's all this bullshit about "the logic" of morality. Bugger off with
> that nonsense.

Sure. If such an alpha master of intelectual thought like you
says so, I will obey. 


> 
> If I'm walking down the street, and see some strapping
> brick-shit-house sized dude chase after you, pin you the ground, beat
> the ever living shit out of you for a few moments, then pull out a
> knife and raise it above his head to kill you..
> 
> Well, I am not a victim. I'm no danger at all. I'm 20 yards away,
> smoking a cigarette, with my .45 in my waist band.
> 
> And I still have the right, and some would argue, the moral
> responsibility, to draw down on him and order him to stop, and if he
> won't to cork that fucker square between eyes.
> 
> And the REASON why I am able to do that. To make a judgment call
> valuing your life over his, IS because of GROUPING. Namely, the
> grouping of victim and grouping of aggressor, and the social
> valuation of one over the other.
> 
> I happen to agree with that valuation. But I'm not arrogant enough to
> say it isn't a grouping, and in that respect is not different than
> other groupings.
> 
> It is simply a grouping that I firmly believe. Others firmly believe
> in groupings based on religion, or race. Those I firmly despise.
> 
> But they are still a representation social in-group/out-group dynamics



I bow to your superior wisdom, massa




> 
> >
> >>
> >> A deeply pacifistic person might disagree,
> >
> > Fine. If somebody doesn't mind being attacked, that's his
> > choice which he CANNOT FORCE on other people, both because of logic
> > and his own pacifist principles.

> 
> It isn't because a pacifist doesn't mind being attacked. It's because
> their morality dictates that using force is wrong. And they won't
> stoop to the level of someone who does, even to defend themselves. It
> is akin to someone putting a gun to your head and trying to force you
> to rape a child. Hopefully you don't. Hopefully your morality is such
> that you'd rather die than do that. Even though someone forcing you
> to do so absolves you of responsibility. You choose to TAKE
> responsibility, and die. Same for the pacifist. He says "I will take
> responsibility for my actions, and not do violence, because violence
> is wrong. Whatever it costs, I won't do wrong."


Sure. Violence is wrong according to pacifists, but allowing
people to be killed, including oneself, is 'right' - I laugh my
ass off at the STUPIDITY of it. 

Feel free to lecture me again with that kind of stupidity as if
it wasn't sheer stupidity...




> > Yesterday YOU WROTE
> >
> > "A white male living in 1740 quite literally was not AS
> > FREE as you or I in terms of his beliefs about race, SLAVERY,
> > God,..."
> 
> Yeah, I mentioned it as an example of the types of social institutions
> that many people are not really in a position to question very
> easily. I thought it would be obvious, and easily accepted.
> 
> You were the one that zeroed in on it, and made a discussion of it.
> Perhaps I should have clarified more.


So, first you bring up a topic. Then you accuse ME of bringing
up the topic...YOU brought up. And now the problem is that I
'zeroed in' on it. 

Oh, and if I mention that YOU brought the topic up, since, you
know, you accused me of doing it, then "This is all about some
mental dick-measuring contest" 

Any more self-parody you'd like to share? 




> 
> >> Indeed, even after they were
> >> FREED, many slaves stayed with their former masters, and worked as
> >> paid laborers. That's a fact. So they certainly wanted to be there,
> >> probably even AS SLAVES.
> >
> > lol...Not only a moral relativist, also a slavery apologist.
> 
> Oh fuck that nonsense. I'm not an apologist for shit. But it is true
> that some freed slaves stayed on the 

Re: Sim Theory

[Mirimir]

On 09/20/2016 09:22 PM, Tom wrote:
> btw, I'd suggest reading Phil Plaits 'Death from the Skies!'. In this
> book he examines a couple of scenarios how the universe might end (among
> a couple other ways how we could die). Very fun read.

There's The Killing Star by Charles R. Pellegrino and George Zebrowski.
Death by relativistic bombardment.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Frisson/comments/1j08oq/text_excerpt_from_the_killing_star_by_charles/

> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 06:07:56PM -0400, grarpamp wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:48 PM,   wrote:
>>> I find it difficult to believe in the heat death of the universe. The Big
>>> Crunch makes sense to me. The universe expands for a time, and collapses.
>>> Like breathing.
>>> But continual expansion with the universe turning into some cold,
>>> undefinable soup.
>>
>> Current model really fucking cold heat death will occur. Yet if gravity
>> is true, yes, no matter infintismal amount, you cannot blow past to
>> escape it. Thus collapse, or at least steady state in case of repulse
>> forces, is the required result.
>>
>> It is sad that not even sci fi knows how to harvest from forcibly
>> diminishing Kelvin, as to revert requires similar energy. But we
>> will have fun till then, provided we get beyond Sol or the galaxy.
> 

Re: Sim Theory

[Mirimir]

On 09/17/2016 08:09 PM, grarpamp wrote:
> So many people have proposed we're simulated...
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
> 
> Now why would such an extremely advanced civilization / collective
> want to simulate us? Is this an unanswered question?

Maybe they're so advanced that there's no way to express their reasons
(or whatever) in ways we could comprehend ;)

But, stuff comes to mind:

Diaspora by Greg Egan [1998]
http://www.gregegan.net/DIASPORA/DIASPORA.html

Accelerando, by Charles Stross [2005]
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/accelerando/accelerando-intro.html

Jean le Flambeur trilogy, by Hannu Rajaniemi [2010-2014]
https://www.goodreads.com/series/57134-jean-le-flambeur

Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

[juan]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 23:40:09 -
xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:

> > I don't want to put words in your mouth, but, are you
> > 'implicitly' saying that slavery being right or wrong is a
> > matter of 'cultural interpretation'? Or mostly a matter of
> > 'interpretation'?
> 
> Look, I'm not arguing for moral relativity, which is basically what
> you're asking.

Yes, that's what I'm asking. And are you sure you aren't
arguing for it? 


> 
> But I am trying to indicate that morality - even if it is soundly
> objective - is nevertheless interpreted differently, by different
> cultures and different people. 

There certainly is room for interpreting some 'details' but not
for the overall principles. 


> When you think on it, morality,
> fundamentally, has as much to do with "right" and "wrong" as it does
> with "in group" and "out group." In many ways, the concepts are
> inseparable.

Sorry, no, that's just more bullshit on your part. 

 
> Murder (killing a member of the in-group) is always wrong. What
> changes is who the "in group" is, and who the "out group" is. And
> likewise for slavery. Nowadays, progressive types make "in group" all
> of humanity, mostly


Not sure what you mean by 'progressive types'? To me
progressive  means : left-wing, fascist piece-of-shit. 


> but we reserve the right to kill members of the
> out-group, with that out-group being defined as those that attack us
> first. Killing in self-defense is OK, 

Killing in self-defense is certainly OK, as a last,
proportional* recourse, at the individual level, and it has
nothing to do with 'groups' or 'progressive types'.

*i.e. you can't kill people because they stole a candy from
you, etc.


> because we're killing a member
> of the out group: i.e. those that resort to violence first.

Dude, that has nothing to do with any 'group'. If you are an
attacker, then your victims have every right to defend
themselves. That's the basic logic of morality. 

> 
> A deeply pacifistic person might disagree, 

Fine. If somebody doesn't mind being attacked, that's his choice
which he CANNOT FORCE on other people, both because of logic
and his own pacifist principles.


> and not fight back even in
> self-defense on moral grounds. Their in-group is even larger than
> yours.

Bullshit. Their view is stupid, but if they enjoy being
attacked...I'd actually argue that by not countering attackers
they are actually doing a disservice to their fellow men. 
 

> 
> >> Could they still do so? Yes, at a cost. Fuck, for that matter, the
> >> slave could refuse to do his work and not BE a slave too. There
> >> would be a cost: beatings, or death. But he has the CHOICE, right?
> >> THAT is your free will?
> >
> >
> > So you don't know what free will means, and you are
> > confusing free will with political freedom.
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> You are the one that brought up slavery, 

Maybe you should quit while you are still ahead? (OK you never
were)

Yesterday YOU WROTE 

"A white male living in 1740 quite literally was not AS FREE as
you or I in terms of his beliefs about race, SLAVERY,
God,..." 



> and asked me if I thought the
> slaves WANTED to be slaves. Of course not. But, now we have you saying
> this:
> 
> >
> > Indeed the slave had free will and could CHOOSE to disobey.
> > What he didn't have was POLITICAL FREEDOM.
> 
> So let me ask you. IF slaves could choose to disobey, why didn't they
> rebel? 

Because they didn't want to get killed. 


> Why wasn't there widespread slave rebellion? And if this
> really was a choice, then they CHOSE not to rebel, and one might
> argue that they wanted to be slaves. 

Your 'type' might argue that...



> Indeed, even after they were
> FREED, many slaves stayed with their former masters, and worked as
> paid laborers. That's a fact. So they certainly wanted to be there,
> probably even AS SLAVES.

lol...Not only a moral relativist, also a slavery apologist.
You know, the moment you started whining about off topic
posts and how people in this list were such experts on 
"abuses of power" I knew what to expect from the likes of you...


> 
> Why was it the Abolishionist movement among whites that got the ball
> rolling on getting rid of slavery?
> 
> What is your take on that?
> 
> My take is that the slaves didn't fucking KNOW any other life.
> Slavery is all they knew. Period. 


You are the worse kind of enemy freedom can have. 



> It's not that they WANTED to be
> slaves. Most couldn't fucking THINK about rebelling, or disobeying,
> because there was NEVER an example in their lives of anyone really
> doing so. Even as freed men, they stayed on the same plantation ..
> for the same reason that many free people 

Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

[xorcist]

>   I don't want to put words in your mouth, but, are you
>   'implicitly' saying that slavery being right or wrong is a
>   matter of 'cultural interpretation'? Or mostly a matter of
>   'interpretation'?

Look, I'm not arguing for moral relativity, which is basically what you're
asking.

But I am trying to indicate that morality - even if it is soundly
objective - is nevertheless interpreted differently, by different cultures
and different people. When you think on it, morality, fundamentally, has
as much to do with "right" and "wrong" as it does with "in group" and "out
group." In many ways, the concepts are inseparable.

Murder (killing a member of the in-group) is always wrong. What changes is
who the "in group" is, and who the "out group" is. And likewise for
slavery. Nowadays, progressive types make "in group" all of humanity,
mostly.. but we reserve the right to kill members of the out-group, with
that out-group being defined as those that attack us first. Killing in
self-defense is OK, because we're killing a member of the out group: i.e.
those that resort to violence first.

A deeply pacifistic person might disagree, and not fight back even in
self-defense on moral grounds. Their in-group is even larger than yours.

>> Could they still do so? Yes, at a cost. Fuck, for that matter, the
>> slave could refuse to do his work and not BE a slave too. There would
>> be a cost: beatings, or death. But he has the CHOICE, right? THAT is
>> your free will?
>
>
>   So you don't know what free will means, and you are
>   confusing free will with political freedom.

Nonsense.

You are the one that brought up slavery, and asked me if I thought the
slaves WANTED to be slaves. Of course not. But, now we have you saying
this:

>
>   Indeed the slave had free will and could CHOOSE to disobey.
>   What he didn't have was POLITICAL FREEDOM.

So let me ask you. IF slaves could choose to disobey, why didn't they
rebel? Why wasn't there widespread slave rebellion? And if this really was
a choice, then they CHOSE not to rebel, and one might argue that they
wanted to be slaves. Indeed, even after they were FREED, many slaves
stayed with their former masters, and worked as paid laborers. That's a
fact. So they certainly wanted to be there, probably even AS SLAVES.

Why was it the Abolishionist movement among whites that got the ball
rolling on getting rid of slavery?

What is your take on that?

My take is that the slaves didn't fucking KNOW any other life. Slavery is
all they knew. Period. It's not that they WANTED to be slaves. Most
couldn't fucking THINK about rebelling, or disobeying, because there was
NEVER an example in their lives of anyone really doing so. Even as freed
men, they stayed on the same plantation .. for the same reason that many
free people today never leave their small little home towns: FEAR. It
CONTROLS the mind and the thoughts.

A few very strong minded souls could do so, of course, and had the heart
to take the beatings as a badge of honor, of sorts. A very few, were free
from fear.

But to their fellow slave onlookers? They would appear insane.

I hate to break it to you, friend. But you don't have free will. Not quite
like you want, at any rate. You're free, yes. But you're constrained.
Controlled. By what you know, and what you fear. The more you know, and
the less you fear, the freer you can think. But for the uneducated masses,
and the slaves of the world.. things aren't exactly as simple as you'd
like them to be.

>
>   If I point a gun at you and say your money or your life, you
>   are free to decide for yourself what you want.

LOL. Oh my, what an armchair warrior. I'd love to get you around a few of
the folks I know. They'd be able to prove to you that in those moments,
you're not thinking or deciding SHIT except, at best, how to keep your
bladder in check. You'll be handing over your wallet before you even fully
understand whats going on.


>> Sure, from a hard-assed use of the terminology "free will" and an
>> inflexible way of looking at it, that can be claimed.
>
>   You mean, from a correct usage of the terminolgy and sticking
>   to logical thinking.

Frankly, from that last comment of yours. It seems to me more that your
"logical thinking" is really code for "woefully sheltered." You talk about
what, or how you'll think and decide if you look down the barrel of gun?
Give me a break. Brother, I'll bet you've never been in a REAL fight, let
alone one that had it escalated to weapons.

The simplifying assumptions your "logic" requires go out the fucking
window when 9 little millimeters appear about 3 meters wide.

>   You can compare us humans to our primate relatives or to our
>   dogs and cats relatives or any other relatives. Ultimately the
>   whole animal kingdom is related. Or, you can go even farther to
>   plants. And? You can find similarities and differences. But you
>   can't make a political philosophy 

Re: on communication - gpg's el gamal and debian's openssl

[Sean Lynch]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 14:58 Steve Kinney  wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> On 09/20/2016 02:19 PM, Georgi Guninski wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:38:43PM -0400, Steve Kinney wrote:
> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> On the downside, it makes denying that you wrote something all
> >> but impossible - "somebody stole my signing key and its pass
> >> phrase" is not what someone who is trying to avoid embarrassment
> >> would like to say.
> >>
> >
> > lol, tell this to the gpg's guys and gals, who completely
> > compromised the El Gamal's signing keys
>
> Oh dear.  That implies that the DEB and RPM package managers are blown
> wide open, as both use GPG for integrity checks.  At least this
> explains why everybody gets rooted all the time.
>
> We gonna have to compile and install from source signed by the
> devel... um, heh heh, signed with what?  Houston, come in?  Anybody
> down there?
>

No. The Debian maintainers revoked all their ElGamal signing keys. It was a
big fuck up, but it's been dealt with. The problem is the larger issue of
writing secure software and building services/processes that depend on that
software. There needs to be more defense in depth, where a single broken
primitive can't compromise the whole chain. Signing commits, publishing
them in multiple independent places, reproducible builds, extensive test
suites. Of course, this is all unglamorous work that's hard to get
volunteers to do unless they're really passionate about end-to-end
security, i.e. the hard, dirty stuff that requires interacting with other
humans, as opposed to individual security primitives which tend to be more
standalone and thus easier for someone to work on in their spare time.


> > and to debian, who memset() what they read from /dev/random.
>
> Sounds like a personal issue to me...
>
> > search the interwebz for references.
>
> TL;DR
>
> teh intertubes has too big, probably over 9000
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJX4bDnAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqPqcIALe915KwejZB6uNapRyaR2bh
> UvCO/Obw+qiBlVBXn5kJJPUWWmF0pi8H3q1q+THWbuGJUnXojzFR3lpQYIf/z5Iz
> QqdSQr0mbbA4ffRncpBXwtMH9Yh//NHSHxJ4wimg4RmDuunNgJyLosWvXCaFSZaC
> mlKuf71P8CsL5Yxx/5ze9APa7B8FFygL/Z7PMaT7WtVGD3rUh++E0hBmB8DEEYjG
> PlPfI5oeoAuTQpDEOv0aH8Hn4mIPhPhR7OP3Dz6TSvki6sYkDb0HPlR6WxANiVO3
> K1GVYTMydR1xAlB4wpHsRJPdZ5nhWAnCb3fFRFqRunHmEbi74WTMFarC7hyFhjE=
> =P36O
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
>

Re: [From xorcist offlist] Cloudflare & NoDAPL again w/ a ROTF

[juan]

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 21:55:09 -
xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:

> > On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 02:43:08 -
> > Do you think that slaves wanted to be slaves? And do you
> > think that the people who enslaved them were not responsible for the
> > enslavement? THAT is free wiil at work.
> >
> > "There are limits free will" is just a vague, irrelevant
> > comment.
> 
> Whatever. This is just hard-ass, inflexible thinking. The point of the
> matter is that right and wrong are largely a matter of interpretation
> through cultural norms.


I don't want to put words in your mouth, but, are you
'implicitly' saying that slavery being right or wrong is a
matter of 'cultural interpretation'? Or mostly a matter of
'interpretation'? 

 
> It was socially reinforced to be racist back then. It was socially
> reinforced to not be homosexual. Hence, it was MORE DIFFICULT to be
> racially egalitarian, or homosexual. This, it would seem to me, shows
> that FREE WILL has limits. Those people were LESS FREE to be
> homosexual, or racially egalitarian.


That has nothing to do with free will. People were, and are
free to think whatever they want. Notice also in the case of
slavery how its 'legal' status changed overnight. And how
the conservatives lost, at least regarding the most overt forms
of slavery. At any rate, that means there wasn't a single
'river' 'flowing' in a single direction.



> 
> Could they still do so? Yes, at a cost. Fuck, for that matter, the
> slave could refuse to do his work and not BE a slave too. There would
> be a cost: beatings, or death. But he has the CHOICE, right? THAT is
> your free will?


So you don't know what free will means, and you are
confusing free will with political freedom. 

Indeed the slave had free will and could CHOOSE to disobey.
What he didn't have was POLITICAL FREEDOM.

If I point a gun at you and say your money or your life, you
are free to decide for yourself what you want. That's
'metaphysical' freedom or free will. You are not free in the
sense that your natural rights are not being respected and you
are not free to keep your property, I am stealing it. By the
way, I am free to become a thief or not. I can't blame someone
else if I do.



> 
> Sure, from a hard-assed use of the terminology "free will" and an
> inflexible way of looking at it, that can be claimed.

You mean, from a correct usage of the terminolgy and sticking
to logical thinking. 

> 
> But for christ's sake you KNOW WHAT I MEAN when I say the slave
> doesn't have free will. 

Well, it would be a lot clearer if you simply said that the
slave didn't have freedom. Coincidentally, "lack of freedom"
would be the definition of slavery...The point I was making is
that despite the fact that the slave was physically coerced, he
still had a will that opposed that coercion. 


> There is a COST to exercising it. It isn't
> fucking FREE.

Now you added a third layer of equivocation =)

> 
> Same for going against social conventions.
> 
> It's fucking grade school elementary.



Let's put it another way :

There are 'benefits' to being a corrupt lapdog who goes along
with whatever corrupt nonsense is currently fashionable. So? Is
that what you advocate? If that's not what you advocate, what's
the point of bringing it up? Is your point that I 'should'
'suck it up' and keep quiet, don't rock the boat, or what?



> 
> > I am not. But I can change the animal anyway. Cats don't
> > have 'leaders'. And my remark would be as relevant, or even more
> > relevant than your comments about humans being 'primates'
> 
> Domesticated cats, no. But anyone with a cat will tell you they are
> LESS SOCIAL pets than dogs.
> 

I happen to have a few cats and I wouldn't make such a  remark.
"Less social"? Less servile than domesticated dogs? Dogs vote,
cats don't? What does "social" even mean?


> That is my whole point.

...

> 
> > So you say. So what. Bottom line is, comparing humans to
> > other animals doesn't prove anything.
> 
> How very Biblical of you.

How so?


> 
> There is an idea in our culture, that it is man's right to use the
> planet, and animals any way we see fit. Because we can, basically.
> It's "might makes right." It's Yahweh's commandment to "hold dominion
> over the earth" where he set man apart from animals.
> 
> It's a primitive notion, really.

Yes, like anything coming from those retards. But I don't
subscribe to it. 

You know, I don't have to either agree with what you're saying,
or with the bible...

> 
> Are you mention humans are animals. Now, its perfectly normal in our
> science to compare lions to tigers. Or horses to zebras. We're
> 

Re: Sim Theory

[grarpamp]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:48 PM,   wrote:
> I find it difficult to believe in the heat death of the universe. The Big
> Crunch makes sense to me. The universe expands for a time, and collapses.
> Like breathing.
> But continual expansion with the universe turning into some cold,
> undefinable soup.

Current model really fucking cold heat death will occur. Yet if gravity
is true, yes, no matter infintismal amount, you cannot blow past to
escape it. Thus collapse, or at least steady state in case of repulse
forces, is the required result.

It is sad that not even sci fi knows how to harvest from forcibly
diminishing Kelvin, as to revert requires similar energy. But we
will have fun till then, provided we get beyond Sol or the galaxy.

Re: on communication - gpg's el gamal and debian's openssl

[Steve Kinney]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1



On 09/20/2016 02:19 PM, Georgi Guninski wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:38:43PM -0400, Steve Kinney wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> On the downside, it makes denying that you wrote something all 
>> but impossible - "somebody stole my signing key and its pass 
>> phrase" is not what someone who is trying to avoid embarrassment 
>> would like to say.
>> 
> 
> lol, tell this to the gpg's guys and gals, who completely 
> compromised the El Gamal's signing keys

Oh dear.  That implies that the DEB and RPM package managers are blown
wide open, as both use GPG for integrity checks.  At least this
explains why everybody gets rooted all the time.

We gonna have to compile and install from source signed by the
devel... um, heh heh, signed with what?  Houston, come in?  Anybody
down there?

> and to debian, who memset() what they read from /dev/random.

Sounds like a personal issue to me...

> search the interwebz for references.

TL;DR

teh intertubes has too big, probably over 9000






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

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJX4bDnAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqPqcIALe915KwejZB6uNapRyaR2bh
UvCO/Obw+qiBlVBXn5kJJPUWWmF0pi8H3q1q+THWbuGJUnXojzFR3lpQYIf/z5Iz
QqdSQr0mbbA4ffRncpBXwtMH9Yh//NHSHxJ4wimg4RmDuunNgJyLosWvXCaFSZaC
mlKuf71P8CsL5Yxx/5ze9APa7B8FFygL/Z7PMaT7WtVGD3rUh++E0hBmB8DEEYjG
PlPfI5oeoAuTQpDEOv0aH8Hn4mIPhPhR7OP3Dz6TSvki6sYkDb0HPlR6WxANiVO3
K1GVYTMydR1xAlB4wpHsRJPdZ5nhWAnCb3fFRFqRunHmEbi74WTMFarC7hyFhjE=
=P36O
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Sim Theory

[John]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512



On September 18, 2016 8:36:52 AM EDT, Georgi Guninski  
wrote:
>The main problem is this scales upwards till infinity via arguments of
>the form "who simulates the simulator?" and "who made what was before
>the big bang?".

It's turtles all the way down Actually, I like to think
that the universe is infinite and forever, except current
models predict heat death once entropy is reached in
some enormous amount of time...

But who fucking knows, really?

John

- --
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iQFBBAEBCgArJBxrZXliYXNlLmlvL25peGVuIDxuaXhlbkBrZXliYXNlLmlvPgUC
V+GO+QAKCRDjJCC+1Hp4x9+rCADEP4G7gKjtKDUwk9AwjpWiawl9DTqxM7LXvRNg
VVm0w1eJ6a5rb+JEqJO3j/BvnJRtehUfoAAnO2Ir+oF4HZ3IzU2VCcEbpQ85PE69
3RKSKKrpfl4L0ejMY0hcnLPZy1LO8nfa7kmZTDcfPf4vVsGRknDh7CEnbJDwDc5u
nljdgCYabyU2sD82JkbeKWtEV6lx/mEOQIf1ETce1a8WtkFiNnXOvAIh+0Bn+z9S
qxtt/8fLDB88anEXphIRD4KaxfcDFX6W0vKpss6bu+NDLnxC8lKfU06N4Nce2wJs
JRcLdAgMmyjVZ1tKYQCrO0aVRYVUSgFIyM7Am5+a5ZD8pgdc
=l6uD
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: on communication - gpg's el gamal and debian's openssl

[Georgi Guninski]

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:38:43PM -0400, Steve Kinney wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On the downside, it makes denying that you wrote something all but
> impossible - "somebody stole my signing key and its pass phrase" is
> not what someone who is trying to avoid embarrassment would like to say.
>

lol, tell this to the gpg's guys and gals, who completely compromised
the El Gamal's signing keys and to debian, who memset() what they read
from /dev/random.
search the interwebz for references.
 

Re: what is a traitor?

[Sean Lynch]

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:58 PM, Steve Kinney  wrote:

> On 09/19/2016 08:46 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > Some good points being raised, on sl1shd()t no less:
> >
> > https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/09/18/2023216/assange-agrees-to-us-p
> rison-if-obama-pardons-chelsea-manning
> >
> >
> >
> > What is a traitor?
>
> It is a label indicating a prejudicial, emotional value judgment.  Bob
> Wilson would probably have said it is a synonym for "a no good shit."
>
> > When is it appropriate to label someone a traitor?
>
> When you want idiots to endorse your intention of kidnapping,
> torturing and/or murdering someone for political reasons.
>
> > When is doing so, an attempt at manipulative propaganda?
>
> Every time, as in every other case where a categorically derogatory
> label is branded onto someone.
>
> Extreme ignorance apparently excuses anything:  I have seen people
> call Australian national Julian Assange a "traitor" because Wikileaks
> published DNC and HRC e-mail dumps.
>

I completely agree with Steve on this.

Morally, in my view, one can never be a traitor to the State, because to
betray the State, you have to have entered into some agreement with the
State voluntarily, i.e. not under duress. The State is force and violence
incarnate, therefore no truly voluntary agreement with it can exist. If
anything, it is those who act as an instrument of the State who are
traitors against the people they dominate. Which means Trump and Clinton
are vying for the position of Head Traitor.

Re: on communication - [zen at freedbms.net: Re: [geany/geany] fails to open Microsoft UTF-16LE file (MSO Word CUSTOM.DIC dictionary file) (#1238)]

[John]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

Agreed - I've signed intermittently with the same key
from my first posts. Generally I don't sign messages,
but I think I may start making a habit of it...

John

On September 20, 2016 12:38:43 PM EDT, Steve Kinney  wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>There's a lot to be said for signing messages to lists like this.  It
>makes impersonation way more difficult.  It provides a visual reminder
>that "signing exists" and thus promotes the use of basic crypto tools.
> Also, if list archives contain /many/ specimens of your signature,
>that enables people to have /some/ limited confidence that it "really
>is your key" in the absence of direct personal contact or a trusted
>introducer.
>
>On the downside, it makes denying that you wrote something all but
>impossible - "somebody stole my signing key and its pass phrase" is
>not what someone who is trying to avoid embarrassment would like to
>say.
>
>And the signatures annoy many people whose mail readers are not set up
>to interpret them - possibly the best reason of all.
>
>:o)
>
>
>
>On 09/20/2016 10:05 AM, Cecilia Tanaka wrote:
>> On Sep 20, 2016 8:46 AM, "John Newman" > > wrote:
>>>
 Sean Lynch: we already knew social skills weren't [Zen's]
 strong suit.
>>>
 Cecilia Tanaka: Zen will say you are "bullying". I [don't] care
 about his opinion.
>>>
>>> Because you two do more than cry and use lots of useless words.
>>>
>>> Stupid fuckers.
>>>
>>> Bullies XD
>>
>> Hmm...  Why are you using John Newman's name, please?  I am a cute
>> "stupid fucker" and I really like him very much.  This e-mail
>> address isn't his, dear, and his writing style is different...  :P
>>
>> Answers in private, if you wish.  Bullying kisses!  :*
>>
>> Ceci
>>
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
>
>iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJX4WYTAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqoGIH/2hyJTq2Gl1NzYI5ZOknopF/
>wpaXuDU7G2ww1aQtbDFiSt3dDcDkKXJB3pl6ykCOZue7GVK6hAolkvaBJojpPDMF
>m9aG88bUQpb3ztpUcUSKMnueLGceDwazjMoVDLEohmT2Tn6O8Xq1M9d9Jb8QsDAt
>pQRG7fZexvbjn2RQ4eMuDOsKrRTM3PwJENQH0+xxAqi16IigWiS/lTyJYpv3h5Wx
>lQWmfqUxWSCOv2Ts8UOnqSBVIDjPG3Wh9bdeazc9QAwFjQjLj0WyIauL8BJsu8xk
>BjFIgwRikGcl1hRyWASGESygoUUE8kr4Vz+5fhxQAvTcZsv8HA5BRwWa8UqXWMU=
>=Rkjm
>-END PGP SIGNATURE-

- --
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iQFBBAEBCgArJBxrZXliYXNlLmlvL25peGVuIDxuaXhlbkBrZXliYXNlLmlvPgUC
V+FwNwAKCRDjJCC+1Hp4xzZgB/9whtvG15eUXXmOXA2qP0deE6kcSXhyKwwM5pKk
NuJJ38Gd1oIUrxVVFTDiQ4gsdDy7WedSbth/BBM9FSCGinKWbM9LFBD0f6huJPzG
AfdKGgmGbl2IqOnlVtmZVb4TMk+OR97lLb/YZnpEqJeyxgt8jmqYAYRteRskclJv
3BaN854op/b3sYv3w0vyE4Bq4rskzfo9RLuM6GXt/6RZVhotq9n69cHUQVOOlOeU
la5yyKiPTK8/4/V4YaVT0d7/sNBquul3P36yKLo7p0OTKEmX0maGhqhuf/4KQmFV
sHVp3y6tB4bHG5Ksc7MiV93tymRN7+N1w7uWmoJglFS4nKdH
=a5/r
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: on communication - [zen at freedbms.net: Re: [geany/geany] fails to open Microsoft UTF-16LE file (MSO Word CUSTOM.DIC dictionary file) (#1238)]

[Steve Kinney]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

There's a lot to be said for signing messages to lists like this.  It
makes impersonation way more difficult.  It provides a visual reminder
that "signing exists" and thus promotes the use of basic crypto tools.
 Also, if list archives contain /many/ specimens of your signature,
that enables people to have /some/ limited confidence that it "really
is your key" in the absence of direct personal contact or a trusted
introducer.

On the downside, it makes denying that you wrote something all but
impossible - "somebody stole my signing key and its pass phrase" is
not what someone who is trying to avoid embarrassment would like to say.

And the signatures annoy many people whose mail readers are not set up
to interpret them - possibly the best reason of all.

:o)



On 09/20/2016 10:05 AM, Cecilia Tanaka wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2016 8:46 AM, "John Newman"  > wrote:
>> 
>>> Sean Lynch: we already knew social skills weren't [Zen's]
>>> strong suit.
>> 
>>> Cecilia Tanaka: Zen will say you are "bullying". I [don't] care
>>> about his opinion.
>> 
>> Because you two do more than cry and use lots of useless words.
>> 
>> Stupid fuckers.
>> 
>> Bullies XD
> 
> Hmm...  Why are you using John Newman's name, please?  I am a cute 
> "stupid fucker" and I really like him very much.  This e-mail
> address isn't his, dear, and his writing style is different...  :P
> 
> Answers in private, if you wish.  Bullying kisses!  :*
> 
> Ceci
> 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJX4WYTAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqoGIH/2hyJTq2Gl1NzYI5ZOknopF/
wpaXuDU7G2ww1aQtbDFiSt3dDcDkKXJB3pl6ykCOZue7GVK6hAolkvaBJojpPDMF
m9aG88bUQpb3ztpUcUSKMnueLGceDwazjMoVDLEohmT2Tn6O8Xq1M9d9Jb8QsDAt
pQRG7fZexvbjn2RQ4eMuDOsKrRTM3PwJENQH0+xxAqi16IigWiS/lTyJYpv3h5Wx
lQWmfqUxWSCOv2Ts8UOnqSBVIDjPG3Wh9bdeazc9QAwFjQjLj0WyIauL8BJsu8xk
BjFIgwRikGcl1hRyWASGESygoUUE8kr4Vz+5fhxQAvTcZsv8HA5BRwWa8UqXWMU=
=Rkjm
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: on communication - [zen at freedbms.net: Re: [geany/geany] fails to open Microsoft UTF-16LE file (MSO Word CUSTOM.DIC dictionary file) (#1238)]

[John]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

It seems I have a doppelganger.  How flattering.

John
- --
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iQFBBAEBCgArJBxrZXliYXNlLmlvL25peGVuIDxuaXhlbkBrZXliYXNlLmlvPgUC
V+FOGwAKCRDjJCC+1Hp4x+v4B/9x7G+sH3tHpXhv/t3KIBSJOmIneHk5e7+YsJIk
A/oUY9+7+qUNJRhxUWokFM1OajROpmcinhTXtr6WoxTkQlOyU3IvT57vwNNNuzQR
1Q9X/rsgTVWwoBB29bw4gyLwwYzfkjQXN8oVCPCBMqIe3s1HvvrTVxm/CqRd8GC6
O61fFy3u/7iejWReCaFZU/impPx5m8+hX2QRzhGVnDxIVoPe0/Lo58AokNRorsNK
K+ESUhIO4FAhxOnh89xBgAx1JzkIa3ou65tVCQwLm8/+KnmWDAhXtdJSLeKvKc8V
0cN6E6CK/tmPVvey9QG6ECi8d4p2ceOlbfGc2/VqC7h/GqGo
=ou2t
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: on communication - [zen at freedbms.net: Re: [geany/geany] fails to open Microsoft UTF-16LE file (MSO Word CUSTOM.DIC dictionary file) (#1238)]

[Cecilia Tanaka]

On Sep 20, 2016 8:46 AM, "John Newman"  wrote:
>
> > Sean Lynch:
> > we already knew social skills
> > weren't [Zen's] strong suit.
>
> > Cecilia Tanaka:
> > Zen will say you are "bullying".
> > I [don't] care about his opinion.
>
> Because you two do more than cry and use lots of useless words.
>
> Stupid fuckers.
>
> Bullies XD

Hmm...  Why are you using John Newman's name, please?  I am a cute "stupid
fucker" and I really like him very much.  This e-mail address isn't his,
dear, and his writing style is different...  :P

Answers in private, if you wish.  Bullying kisses!  :*

Ceci

on communication - [zen at freedbms.net: Re: [geany/geany] fails to open Microsoft UTF-16LE file (MSO Word CUSTOM.DIC dictionary file) (#1238)]

[John Newman]

> Sean Lynch:
> we already knew social skills
> weren't [Zen's] strong suit.

> Cecilia Tanaka:
> Zen will say you are "bullying".
> I [don't] care about his opinion.

Because you two do more than cry and use lots of useless words.

Stupid fuckers.

Bullies XD

Xorcist = Coderman

[Rudy]

> xorcist:
> no one talks crypto

All these read like Patrick from risky.biz, yo.

Yo Yo.

Did I say Yo!

On the Church of Secrets

[grarpamp]

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/09/19/assange-manning-and-snowden-standing-conscience-truthtellers

how classified documents function as a tangible object that symbolizes
a bond among those who are inside this secret network, in a similar
way that “many religions and cults imbue their priestly class with
additional scarcity value by keeping their religious texts secret from
the public or the lower orders of the devoted”.

Like Manning, these patriots of the Internet generation pledged
allegiance to trust in the common man, reminding us of a kinship that
binds us all together, regardless of religion

SE: Appeal Court on Assange Detention

[grarpamp]

https://cryptome.org/2016/09/se-assange-16-0916.pdf

Meanwhile, Ecuador reaffirms its political asylum
for Assange, which you can find to read elsewhere.

People say Ecuador is nice weather and fine place to holiday.

UK: Lauri Love Extradition to US

[grarpamp]

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/usa-v-love-judgment.pdf

Re: Xorcist = Coderman

[grarpamp]

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:42 PM,   wrote:
> I don't know who "coderman" is, nor do I really give a fuck. But rather

As juan says, cman's my bitch, so leave him alone.

> But since I have to insult my fucking self and no one talks crypto

Don't be too sure who talks what, whether applied, philosophical,
or not, though certainly not among most common talkers here.