Re: Responsibility.
On Thursday, January 17, 2002, at 10:55 AM, Tim May wrote: On Thursday, January 17, 2002, at 10:14 AM, Aimee Farr wrote: And your insinuation that we are using mattd, for example, as a cat's paw for violent political action (?) while obtaining plausible deniabilty is pernicious. It wasn't an insinuation, just saying that it happens. I would not like to see this forum further mischaracterized as being associated with certain activities in the press. I don't care what you would like this forum characterized or mischaracterized as. Fact is, many of us support replacing the current U.S. Government with something much closer to the intent of the Founders. I'm reminded of a cartoon from the back of a punk-rock flyer from the mid-80s. When you cut out a cancer, do you stick another in it's place? Personally, I think it would be a _good_ thing if a massively violent event were to cut the head off the snake. This would speed up the process. Unfortunately, I don't believe that the current government would be replaced by the one described in the constitution. Too many people wouldn' t like that. -- Interfaces matter. You need mathematical bones; engineering muscle; but you won't replicate without beautiful skin. Bits, transistors, wires, code, gummint velveeta is free. Will is expensive. Gutenburg. Smith. Ford. Moore. Postel. Steam engines were neat. Steam engines pulling trains were amazing. Computers were neat. Computers networked were amazing. Warning grunts are useful. The ability of a charistmatic speaker to fuck with your head is disastrous. --Blank Frank(anonymously)--
Re: Responsibility.
Threats of violence here should not be taken seriously, except as literary outbursts. They are a pressure-relieving belly-bump of the list, not unlike screaming kill at a sports event or in military training or as children scream fighting over cop-daddy's Beretta (and as shown last night on CBS's playing a tape of Islamic children acting out their father's futile anger against the US). In fact, most of us who call for killing are careful to state that the pretend murderous exhortations are a 1st Amendment speech privilege and should not be interpreted to be an illegal threat as Western Washington terrorism-enthralled imbeciles have done. That qualifier is a constant feature of this list and anybody who deliberately omits the qualifier is rightly considered to be an agent of the behavioral and linguistic authorities and deserves killing and worse, censoring, and the very worst, ostracizing, to invoke a comforting tantrics oft used here (say it, My Aggravator deserves killing, you'll feel a tingle where numbness once reigned). Deserving targets include well-known, self-incriminated behavorial and linguistic governing agents Aimee Farr, Mattd, me, and now that I've carefully reviewed the evidence, all literate subscribers here who vaunt unmarked hegemonic lingo of supremacy. Kill all those more vociferous than you, beginning with those attempt to quieten your drum beat. You know I mean killing in the literary sense, to disagree with at the top of your powers of distortion, to scream shut the fuck up, you're making more sense than me, in accord with this list's tough, no bullshit except my stinkfree bullshit enforcement policy, faux sans moderation version.
RE: Responsibility.
And your insinuation that we are using mattd, for example, as a cat's paw for violent political action (?) while obtaining plausible deniabilty is pernicious. It wasn't an insinuation, just saying that it happens. I would not like to see this forum further mischaracterized as being associated with certain activities in the press. It's not fair that people will perceive you in this way. But, people aren't fair, or 'right-headed.' Moral judgments usually aren't based on rationality. ~Aimee
Re: Responsibility.
On Thursday, January 17, 2002, at 08:45 AM, Aimee Farr wrote: When you paint targets on people, other individuals may cause them harm, seeking some measure of your acceptance. Some here might have actual followers, not fans or confederates-in-cause. Some individuals here, and you even as a group don't have to ask for somebody to be hurt, just imply that it is consistent with your wishes. When somebody expresses targeted violent sentiments, and you don't correct them, they perceive that as a ratification. (While mattd is a self-identifier, others might not be. You might not even know about them.) Such suggestions are a time-tested method of obtaining plausible deniability for violent political action. Back on the list for a day or two and already you are back in your tired old pattern of claiming that there is some collective guilt for the actions of individuals. What mattd writes about is of little concern to me--I filter his garbage into the right spot for it. The notion that others have to denounce his views, or my views, or your views is wrong-headed. People say a lot of things, and others are free to believe or not believe what they say. It is not our collective responsibility, nor any of our individual responsibilities, to denounce or repudiate them. And your insinuation that we are using mattd, for example, as a cat's paw for violent political action (?) while obtaining plausible deniabilty is pernicious. Things must be quiet in Crawford with the Prez gone, but this is no excuse for you to return to this list and resume your trolling. --Tim May The great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able may have a gun. --Patrick Henry The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. --Alexander Hamilton
Re: Responsibility.
On Thursday, January 17, 2002, at 10:14 AM, Aimee Farr wrote: And your insinuation that we are using mattd, for example, as a cat's paw for violent political action (?) while obtaining plausible deniabilty is pernicious. It wasn't an insinuation, just saying that it happens. I would not like to see this forum further mischaracterized as being associated with certain activities in the press. I don't care what you would like this forum characterized or mischaracterized as. Fact is, many of us support replacing the current U.S. Government with something much closer to the intent of the Founders. Personally, I think it would be a _good_ thing if a massively violent event were to cut the head off the snake. This would speed up the process. And crypto anarchy makes possible the wider use of various interesting technologies in support of these goals. Blacknets, data havens, contract assassinations (not the jimbell lotteries, which are spectacularly inefficient), tax avoidance, destabilization of central regimes, instructions for building weapons of mass destruction, and so on. Don't like these views? Fine. If you fear having your reputation tainted by the views expressed here, leave. You have never contributed anything worth discussing here. Nearly all of your messages are whines that we are not being responsible or are warnings that we'd better tone down our views or face prosecution. Worthless. --Tim May Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice.--Barry Goldwater
Re: Responsibility.
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Aimee Farr wrote: When you paint targets on people, other individuals may cause them harm, seeking some measure of your acceptance. Some here might have actual followers, not fans or confederates-in-cause. Some individuals here, and you even as a group don't have to ask for somebody to be hurt, just imply that it is consistent with your wishes. When somebody expresses targeted violent sentiments, and you don't correct them, they perceive that as a ratification. (While mattd is a self-identifier, others might not be. You might not even know about them.) Such suggestions are a time-tested method of obtaining plausible deniability for violent political action. Sadly true. While some people actually get real information and form their own opinions, the majority simply repeat the bulk feed straight from the TV. Government controlled information and Hollywood movies provide the justification for any atrocity the US military sees fit to commit. All it takes is a nice Hollywood movie about the subject to get the president's popularity polls stay high, and all is well in the capitol. Still, does that make all the violence justified and allright? If anyone on this planet is a master for 'creating plausible deniability for violent action' and justification of their own brutality and acts of mass murder, it is the US military and political system. Double standards *is* the American Way of doing foreign policy. Public 'perception management' is a military science nowadays. See 'Puppet Master' in Air Force 2015 somewhere under www.fas.org. I would think SOMEBODY can at least make the effort to say something when violent sentiments are expressed. Guess not. ~Aimee Heh. I used to think the same about American foreign policies, but they consider 1.5 million dead Iraqi women and children 'worth the price' for what they got. Value is a biased concept. Double standards apply. In general, Americans see no value in the lives or human rights of non-Americans. They don't seek the 'good of all', or 'equal justice' on this planet. They seek money for themselves. Each individually and as groups and entities. Indeed, money is the only significant political motive Americans are capable of having. Someone in the chain of command is motivated by money and power, or things would not be happening the way they do. Expressing 'violent sentiments' is equal to 'passing wind', in my book. Freedom of speech and opionion should be respected. (Read: At least those of Americans, if you are an American.) What we should be worrying of, instead, is people not saying anything even when people are being slaughtered and starved to death. What I want is the government to start respecting the lives and rights of non-Americans equally in their foreign policy. Is that too much to ask? The respect you can afford to give, is the respect you can expect to get. Right now, Americans don't seem to afford much.
Re: Responsibility.
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Aimee Farr wrote: When you paint targets on people, other individuals may cause them harm, seeking some measure of your acceptance. Some here might have Luckily, only individuhhals here. So, keep painting. actual followers, not fans or confederates-in-cause. Some individuals here, and you even as a group don't have to ask for somebody to be hurt, just imply that it is consistent with your wishes. When somebody expresses targeted violent sentiments, and you Can people be responsible for actions of crazy people? don't correct them, they perceive that as a ratification. (While mattd is a self-identifier, others might not be. You might not even know about them.) Such suggestions are a time-tested method of obtaining plausible deniability for violent political action. I'd rather prefer to think of this as a rowdy bar. A place to have fun, a place to get a bloody nose, possibly. I would think SOMEBODY can at least make the effort to say something when violent sentiments are expressed. Why? Consenting adults here, last time I looked. Guess not.
Re: Responsibility.
Aimee Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : When you paint targets on people, other individuals may cause them harm, seeking some measure of your acceptance. Some here might have actual followers, not fans or confederates-in-cause. Some individuals here, and you even as a group don't have to ask for somebody to be hurt, just imply that it is consistent with your wishes. When somebody expresses targeted violent sentiments, and you don't correct them, they perceive that as a ratification. (While mattd is a self-identifier, others might not be. You might not even know about them.) Such suggestions are a time-tested method of obtaining plausible deniability for violent political action. I would think SOMEBODY can at least make the effort to say something when violent sentiments are expressed. Guess not. ~Aimee CP is a mailing list, a miniature study in anarchy. I don't think for a moment that any participant is obligated in any way to make the list meet any entity's concept of what the look and feel should be. Those who want to can try to their heart's content to reshape the CP list ( c.f. mattd's voluminous efforts ) or they can form their own forum and do whatever they choose somewhere else. Another thing to consider is that this is not a crowd poised for immediate physical action against a readily accessible target. I'm guessing it would be pretty tough to assign legal responsibility for the actions of one loon to others ( loons or not ) who may have posted here. I don't doubt that any number of lurking goons would like to try and probably would have succeeded in netting dozens by now if it were an easy kill. Mike printf( %s, theAlphaCatQuote );
Re: Responsibility.
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Tim May wrote: On Thursday, January 17, 2002, at 08:45 AM, Aimee Farr wrote: When you paint targets on people, other individuals may cause them harm, seeking some measure of your acceptance. Some here might have actual followers, not fans or confederates-in-cause. Some individuals here, and you even as a group don't have to ask for somebody to be hurt, just imply that it is consistent with your wishes. When somebody expresses targeted violent sentiments, and you don't correct them, they perceive that as a ratification. (While mattd is a self-identifier, others might not be. You might not even know about them.) Such suggestions are a time-tested method of obtaining plausible deniability for violent political action. Back on the list for a day or two and already you are back in your tired old pattern of claiming that there is some collective guilt for the actions of individuals. What mattd writes about is of little concern to me--I filter his garbage into the right spot for it. The notion that others have to denounce his views, or my views, or your views is wrong-headed. People say a lot of things, and others are free to believe or not believe what they say. It is not our collective responsibility, nor any of our individual responsibilities, to denounce or repudiate them. And your insinuation that we are using mattd, for example, as a cat's paw for violent political action (?) while obtaining plausible deniabilty is pernicious. Even if CIA can Echelonize each individual bullshitter and character string they find on the Internet, it should be quite easy for programmers to create something that will roam around the net and give them enough suitable strings to read and check, and leave the smart people well enough alone. All it takes is one e-mail virus or a trojan that sends randomly generated threats, including perhaps some encrypted shit and files, and the CIA, Secret Service, etc goon-squads will have their hands full raiding random people's homes. And all the people of the world would once again be free to discuss and bullshit each other as much as they want about anyone they want. But do (we) the serious people really want that? Stupid people deserve to be caught and real Al-Quaida terrorists don't bullshit on the Internet anyway. After all, it is a small limit on people's freedom to not be able to dissent and speak out freely in public. And it mostly concerns only non-American arabs who have no privacy rights (now) anyway. God Bless America.
RE: Responsibility.
From Aimee Farr: I would think SOMEBODY can at least make the effort to say something when violent sentiments are expressed. You can. Go ahead. .. Blanc
