On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Jim Choate wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, xganon wrote: > > > Jimbo you said you started this list this is a lie. > > If you're talking of the current CDR, no it isn't. > > > You have been asked by many on the list to stop your silly posting > > of news we have seen before. > > And I've asked the CACL contingent to stop their silly, worthless, > diatribe; which we've all seen before. > > > It has come to a time when most people have you in their kill file > > Actually not. > > > But you keep on posting are you now like Matthew using this list > > for your own storage. > > If I'm in 'most peoples' kill file then they never see it. > > You can't have it both ways. > > > If your so proud of this list that you want to claim ownership, > > Never claimed 'ownership'. Sorry. > > You're confusing me with Tim, Black Unicorn, Declan, etc. Oh wait, that's > the CACL contingent... That's funny, but whose masked faces were on Wired 1.2? Certainly yours was not one of them. Claiming that you're doing anything other than running a CDR node (which you piss in) is of course false, which you haven't directly claimed. see: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.02/ Which leads to the Wired 1.2 Cypherpunks article: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.02/crypto.rebels_pr.html The string "Choate" is not contained there, though the strings "Hughes", "May", Gilmore are. Certainly those strings have far greater positive reputaion capital than the "Choate" string. I wonder why that could be? (I suspect posting slashdot urls over and over is one reason. Insane science posts is another. Lack of reality is yet another.) Yet another thing I'm not too clear about: Why do you run a CDR list? If you are claiming that those who follow the "CACL Theories" (which you've yet to provide any references to other than your own posts) are clueless, then why are you running a list node that is dedicated to their theories? Whenever I've tried to make sense of your posts, my conclusion has always been that you are a socialist, possibly with communist leanings. Certainly the ideals of cypherpunks as outlined in that Wired article and on the original text that was at soda.berkeley.edu, are what you'd consider "muddled CACL thinking"... So why do you run a CDR node? If you're claiming that the ideals that Erich Hughes and Tim May forged are "CACL theories" and you disagree with them, then why run a such a mailing list node? > > why do you fill it with your garbage. > > Because it's more interesting than your garbage seems like a equitable > responce. Ok, so by that line, the silent assumption is that you agree to the text "your garbage" which it is. So we can go from there. It's very simple: if we'd wanted to read slashdot, we can read it on our own. If we wanted to read the onion, we could do the same. I'm not telling you to stop posting news completeley, because occasionally, and recently that word has shrunk down to almost never, you do post an article that is useful. You have improved in that you're no longer posting the whole articles. But the side effect is that now you're posting 10-20 messages a day which contain nothing but an url to slashdot and the like, and your signature. The subject line sometimes hints that there's something there, but not really. What would be useful - if you're going to continue this, is if you copied and pasted say the first paragraph of the article and put in next to the url, or some bit of information about the article. But more often than not, Slashdot itself is worthless; it's usually just a "Hey, go check out this other article on this other web site." After all, the guys on Slashdot do what you do, which is hand out urls to other folks. And guess what? I already read slashdot on a daily basis, so your slashdot posts are worthless to me. I suspect, though do not claim to speak for other members on these linked mailing lists, that a good majority of them also read slashdot... so those posts are worthless. So rather than posting a link to to slashdot which is in truth a link to some other place, why don't you follow their post, go to the source, say NYTIMES or whatever, post the url to the real story, and say the 1st paragraph, or some text about why you thought this article would be relevant to cryptography. (And please, I couldn't care less about Plan 9 posts, or things about your favorite music band, or things unrelated to cryptography. This isn't after all social-studies-punks.) And even better yet, why don't you queue up all those articles, and post a single message with url, and description/sample paragraph. That way it's a single message instead of dozens. Make sense? After all, the assumption about your posts is that you want to share something with us, and not just piss in the water we drink. So if it's worth sharing, it's worth sharing it in the right way.
