Re: [unwanted offlist mail] Re: It's for YOU! Fwd: Re: Jake and Tor article
> On Oct 14, 2016, at 2:13 PM, Razer wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 10/14/2016 10:09 AM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
>> Reposting email clearly intended to be private
>
>
> Spam mail is intended to be private too. So I shouldn't pass that info
> on to a sysadmin or other person who might be spammed due to, let's say,
> hijacked address book?
>
> IOW You ARE NOT MAKING A VALID POINT!
>
> I did not request the emails, I did not originate the conversations at
> any point. I attempted to SEVERELY DISSUADE THE PERSON from sending
> them. Suicide threats from someone I don't know?
>
> Fuck that. Go kill yourself. There are people trying desperately to live
> and dying for no good reason and I'm going to worry about unsolicited
> suicide notes from someone I don't even know?
>
> Maybe I should feel sorry for that esquire from Nigeria who wants to
> deposit money in my bank account because he's being hounded by his
> government too?
>
> Your idea of "Private" is perverse and dysfunctional. "She" ('her'
> recent spew before subsiding was very masculine in nature) has been
> sending this garbage to a few other UNWILLING RECIPIENTS whose emails
None of these other UNWILLING RECIPIENTS has seen fit to broadcast a private
message over and over.
> she only knows because this list is so fucking unsecured it passes your
So "unsecured" ? How do you suggest the list be "secured"?
John
> email on to... whomever. Spam email harvesters etc.
>
> I've violated NO ONE'S privacy.
>
> Hugs and kisses... I'd like to be in your lap right now...
>
> Crap.
>
> Rr
>
Re: [unwanted offlist mail] Re: It's for YOU! Fwd: Re: Jake and Tor article
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 13:02:04 -0500 "Shawn K. Quinn" wrote: > On Fri, 2016-10-14 at 15:07 -0300, juan wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:51:00 -0500 > > "Shawn K. Quinn" wrote: > > > > > > > Can we agree that there's crap that never should make it on to the > > > list to begin with, > > > > > > Like your constant calls for censorship and your sick > > #$%&#$%&# propaganda, for instance. > > Moderation, not censorship. There is a huge difference. 'Moderation' is censorship. You should at least have the decency of not stabbing people in the back and be honest about your despicabla true intentions. Of course, trying to openly stab people is a lot riskier. It's not hard to see that you are a vocal advocate of censorship. So you can take off your fucking, transparent, mask. Oh, and you also get to rewrite my mesages? +) - I once thought your posts were sarcasm. It's obvious now that you are the god of unintentional self-parody. >
Re: [unwanted offlist mail] Re: It's for YOU! Fwd: Re: Jake and Tor article
hi hi jaun ;- Original Message On Oct 14, 2016, 10:59 AM, juan wrote: On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:51:00 -0500 "Shawn K. Quinn" wrote: > Can we agree that there's crap that never should make it on to the > list to begin with, Like your constant calls for censorship and your sick americunt propaganda, for instance. > such as the explicit garbage clearly never > intended for public consumption which I was originally replying to? >
Re: [unwanted offlist mail] Re: It's for YOU! Fwd: Re: Jake and Tor article
On Fri, 2016-10-14 at 15:07 -0300, juan wrote: > On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:51:00 -0500 > "Shawn K. Quinn" wrote: > > > > Can we agree that there's crap that never should make it on to the > > list to begin with, > > > Like your constant calls for censorship and your sick #$%&#$%&# > propaganda, for instance. Moderation, not censorship. There is a huge difference. -- Shawn K. Quinn
Re: [unwanted offlist mail] Re: It's for YOU! Fwd: Re: Jake and Tor article
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:51:00 -0500 "Shawn K. Quinn" wrote: > Can we agree that there's crap that never should make it on to the > list to begin with, Like your constant calls for censorship and your sick americunt propaganda, for instance. > such as the explicit garbage clearly never > intended for public consumption which I was originally replying to? >
Re: [unwanted offlist mail] Re: It's for YOU! Fwd: Re: Jake and Tor article
On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 12:34:59 -0400 John Newman wrote: > > An informal group dedicated to public education and dissemination of > encryption (also known as cryptography, the science and art of secret > writing). I originally hosted the mailing list (cypherpu...@toad.com) > and provided space for the first few years' worth of meetings. A > descendant of the mailing list is still operating; subscribe to > cryptogra...@metzdowd.com." > > No mention of the current cypherpunks list :P Right. That tells you exactly what gilmore stands for. His EFF was already and correctly seen as corrupt and useless 20 years ago - check the archives of gilmore's original, 'own' cypherpunk mailing list. Also, the amount of effort needed to learn what kind of textbook example of unintentional self-pardoy the 'cryptography' mailing list is, is very low. Just spend ten minutes reading the pseudo technical garbage that gets posted to that fully censored cesspool =) > > Taken from http://www.toad.com/gnu/ > > > John
