On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:27:13 -0500, Sunder wrote:
>Aaron wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:58:25 -0500, Sunder wrote:
>>
>> >> PS: concluding that someone needs to die because their unorthodox ideas
>> >> cause the theft of your property is the sign of an emotionally unbalanced
>> >> person.
At Thu, 24 Feb 2000 22:06:57 -0600, "Aaron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
>On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:27:13 -0500, Sunder wrote:
>
>>Aaron wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:58:25 -0500, Sunder wrote:
>>>
>>> >> PS: concluding that someone needs to die because their unorthodox
>ideas
>>> >>
Aaron wrote:
Blah, blah, blah, keep repeating your party line commie mantra. Otherwise, how
else would you, yourself believe it. Obviously, if you didn't give a shit
about my property, you wouldn't bother making such a big deal about it.
You just go ahead and believe your bullshit all you lik
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:01:50 -0400, Anonymous Sender wrote:
>Without any real knowledge, with only the warm feeling of being right and
>knowing that all sheep around will instantly confirm it, americans
>denounce communism, and it feels so good. Orgasmic.
People on this list think they've prove
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000, Aaron wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:01:50 -0400, Anonymous Sender wrote:
>
> >Without any real knowledge, with only the warm feeling of being right and
> >knowing that all sheep around will instantly confirm it, americans
> >denounce communism, and it feels so good. Orga
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000, Aaron wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:48:11 -0500, Sunder wrote:
>
> >FYI: corporations don't own my ass. I'd say the reverse is true though. Ever
> >hear of stock? When you buy it, you own a piece of their asses.
>
> Yeah, and you're Ted Turner? Don't equate yourself
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:48:11 -0500, Sunder wrote:
>FYI: corporations don't own my ass. I'd say the reverse is true though. Ever
>hear of stock? When you buy it, you own a piece of their asses.
Yeah, and you're Ted Turner? Don't equate yourself to the bourgeoisie. You
only make me laugh at s
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Oh puhleeze. Research before you speak. I was born in a satelite of Red
> > Russia. It was a commie state. I remember it all too well. Joe Sixpack might
> > not give a shit about how much it sucks elsewhere. I do, I was there.
>
> Irrelev
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The statement is simply that the average american knows dick about the conditions
> that exist in other nations..
> Americans condemn Communism usually without even having read the Communist
> Manifesto;
>
> Americans condemn Communism without knowing shit about Ma
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Sunder wrote:
> Anonymous Sender wrote:
> > It's amusing how the brainwashing shows its ugly face when the appropriate
> > stimulus is applied. For most US subjects it is the "communism" thingie.
>
> Oh puhleeze. Research before you speak. I was born in a satelite of Red
Anonymous Sender wrote:
>
> >You're a commie, that's enough of a threat to everyone's property.
>
> It's amusing how the brainwashing shows its ugly face when the appropriate
> stimulus is applied. For most US subjects it is the "communism" thingie.
Oh puhleeze. Research before you speak. I
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000, Sunder wrote:
> Irrelevan my ass. I'm offended that you would assume such a thing about
> anyone. I won't let you escape this arguement by stating "But I said the
> Average American and you're not average." The average American isnt'
> knowledgeable about cyphers, or the
Anonymous Sender wrote:
> >You're a commie, that's enough of a threat to everyone's property.
> It's amusing how the brainwashing shows its ugly face when the appropriate
> stimulus is applied. For most US subjects it is the "communism" thingie.
Speak for yourself, Brainwashing my left a
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Anonymous Sender wrote:
> Without any real knowledge, with only the warm feeling of being right and
> knowing that all sheep around will instantly confirm it, americans
> denounce communism, and it feels so good. Orgasmic.
Indeed. I have often wondered about that. During th
>You're a commie, that's enough of a threat to everyone's property.
It's amusing how the brainwashing shows its ugly face when the appropriate
stimulus is applied. For most US subjects it is the "communism" thingie.
Without any real knowledge, with only the warm feeling of being right and
knowi
>I hate communist political systems with almost the same passion that I
Q.E.D.
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000, Xenophon wrote:
> > It is _precisely_ because of this ignorance that makes Anonymous' point so
> > relevent.
>
> For every American mouth-breather who calls all Democrats commie bastards, there is
> another who laments 'American ignorance'. Both are trite.
You're probably
Aaron wrote:
>
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:01:50 -0400, Anonymous Sender wrote:
>
> >Without any real knowledge, with only the warm feeling of being right and
> >knowing that all sheep around will instantly confirm it, americans
> >denounce communism, and it feels so good. Orgasmic.
>
> People on
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Sunder wrote:
>
> > So then, what's the answer? Capitalism or Crapunism under anarchy? :)
>
> Dunno .. but I sort of suspect that if we could pull off a true anarchy
> that it wouldn't matter much.
>
> Individuals could clump
At 08:15 AM 3/1/00 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
dressed under
>our present system to get it working well again. Those changes won't
>happen easily because our culture is wearing the blinders of false
>profits.
Do you mean dotcom IPOs or false prophets?
:-)
X-Loop: openpgp.net
From: Sunder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> It might not even be the "standard of living" making for the disparity,
but
> rather the value of the dollar versus the value of the local currency.
Sure,
> these guys make $20 a month, but that $20 a month would buy them as much
as our
> $2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> The problem is the herd mentality. When I get Joe Average alone, sit down
> and reason with him I find that most times we share a good deal of
> insights and we both go away from the discussion better off .. its when
> you get people in a group that things go astray
Sorry for the delay in response -- my provider has had some problems
as of late.
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Jim Burnes wrote:
> Well, OK...thats a null statement. Most people have no idea what conditions
> are in other nations. Why should they care? (unless they dont like where
> they are living a
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Sunder wrote:
> That just proves that Joe Average is entertaining you, but believes otherwise.
> Or is entertaining the mob.
That could very well be the case.
> Not a problem. You get them an emergency, you feed them FUD and scare them,
> and they'll bend over in every
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote:
> :Well, OK...thats a null statement. Most people have no idea what conditions
> :are in other nations. Why should they care? (unless they dont like where
> :they are living and want to move).
>
> (1) I would argue that there has yet
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Tom Vogt wrote:
> Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote:
> > (1) I would argue that there has yet to *be* an actual *Communist* state
> > by which we could gauge the Communist existense.
>
> now, I've heard THAT argument until I grew sick of it.
>
> say, isn't the fact tha
(J.A. Terranson donned his extra heavy asbestos underwear, then appended
his thoughts thusly...)
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Jim Burnes wrote:
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:>
:> Irrelevent. No one is arguing that existence under communist rule is
:> a holiday -- or even better than existence in the U.S.
orry
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: Jim Burnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)
>Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 23:20:35 -0500 (EST)
>
>
>
> > --
> > F
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Not a problem. You get them an emergency, you feed them FUD and scare them,
> > and they'll bend over in every direction you ask. Hell, just scream terrorist
> > and they'll happily put up with all sorts of nonsense to take a plane ride.
>
> Wow. You're good at t
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Curtis Fockler wrote:
> People and the right, yeah, I think the USA is good enough for me. Yeah we
> have Waco, Ruby ridge and all the crap. But we are able to have all the crap
> and play a role in it if we want.
>
> Try that somewhere else in the world and see what happ
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Sunder wrote:
> So then, what's the answer? Capitalism or Crapunism under anarchy? :)
Dunno .. but I sort of suspect that if we could pull off a true anarchy
that it wouldn't matter much.
Individuals could clump together and institute whatever sort of
socio-economic system
"Any man who would trade a portion of his liberty for security deserves
neither." Benjamin Franklin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Come now. It is not theft if you agree to give the money away, which you
>implicitly do by living in America and being an American citizen. Or, like
>>me,
accept your fringe status, bow to the majority rule of democracy
If someone holds a gun to your head and deman
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000, Xenophon wrote:
> Bowing to the majority rule of democracy is not something we should
> have to do in a republic. 51% should not be able to successfully
> implement a campaign of theft.
Of course, but far more than 51% of the American people in every state
of the union, sup
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Irrelevent. No one is arguing that existence under communist rule is
> a holiday -- or even better than existence in the U.S. The statement is
> simply that the average american knows dick about the conditions that
> exist in other nations, and as an aside, is oblivi
Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote:
> (1) I would argue that there has yet to *be* an actual *Communist* state
> by which we could gauge the Communist existense.
now, I've heard THAT argument until I grew sick of it.
say, isn't the fact that there hasn't been a communist state despite
severa
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Any government needs appropriate leadership, especially in its
> infancy.. and those leaders need to be dedicated to that government
> deep in their bones.
What do you mean by leadership? An elite?
That is a historical falacy based in the belief
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Sunder wrote:
> Amen brother! Sing it again! Ain't nothing sweeter than freedom. And that's
> as capitalist as you can get.
Capitalism is not equivalent to freedom in any manner. If anything the
pursuit of capitalist goals has driven more abuse than help by many
orders o
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, David Honig wrote:
> At 08:15 AM 3/1/00 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
> dressed under
> >our present system to get it working well again. Those changes won't
> >happen easily because our culture is wearing the blinders of false
> >profits.
>
> Do you mean dotcom IPOs or false pr
At 12:29 PM 3/1/00 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
>Capitalism is not equivalent to freedom in any manner. If anything the
>pursuit of capitalist goals has driven more abuse than help by many
>orders of magnitude.
>
>There is a reason the Constitution doesn't mention business rights or
>commerce in ge
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, Duncan Frissell wrote:
> At 12:29 PM 3/1/00 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
>
> >Capitalism is not equivalent to freedom in any manner. If anything the
> >pursuit of capitalist goals has driven more abuse than help by many
> >orders of magnitude.
> >
> >There is a reason the Const
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Sunder wrote:
:Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote:
:>
:> (J.A. Terranson donned his extra heavy asbestos underwear, then appended
:> his thoughts thusly...)
:>
:> (1) I would argue that there has yet to *be* an actual *Communist* state
:> by which we could gauge the Com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Any government needs appropriate leadership,
that is an assumption, as yet unproven. I agree that it DOES sound good,
but it is still an assumption. since the rest of your argument rests on
it, you should give it a little more support.
> especially in its
> infancy.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Most Americans are so dependent, so hopelessly inurred with the current
> > lifestyle that they wouldn't recognize communism if it bit them in the ass.
>
> Agreed. That is precisely my point -- and yet they condemn it with all
> of the passion that the state says
Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote:
>
> :Erm, what, Russia is not good enough an example for you?
>
> No, it is definitely not. the USSR (not "Russia" BTW) was no more a
> genuine communist state than the US is a genuine capitalist state.
> :If you agree (and I
> :don't speak for you) that
Amen brother! Sing it again! Ain't nothing sweeter than freedom. And that's
as capitalist as you can get.
Now if only Uncle Sam would stop fucking it over with bullshit anti-gun,
anti-speech, insane taxes, and pro-bureocractic regulation bullshit laws!
Curtis Fockler wrote:
>
> Come on out
Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote:
>
> (J.A. Terranson donned his extra heavy asbestos underwear, then appended
> his thoughts thusly...)
>
> (1) I would argue that there has yet to *be* an actual *Communist* state
> by which we could gauge the Communist existense.
Erm, what, Russia is not
Okay, Robert, who wore a thong monokini at FC00?
Who's got implants since FC99, unable to face the naked
ridicule at 00?
Were infections running wild as predicted?
Who died? Where'd you stash the carcass, sewing a
pickled corpse in a donkey's stomach, head out the
navel, aint novel, well, not
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 21:10:18 -0400, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
>Um, that's "petit bourgeois", to you, sir. Of course, since you probably
>heard it second-hand in a Texas graduate-student drawl, you're excused.
>
>Socialism is *french*, remember?
I'm not French.
Yesterday for breakfast I stopped by Au Bon Pain on the northeast corner of
Anguilla -- no, not the US chain, but a bakery run by some, well, surly
French expats.
On a more topical note, I will put photos from the fc00 conf and some other
cypherpunkly events when I get them developed later th
At 15:45 2/28/2000 -1000, Reese wrote:
>Here's one place where I'll agree with you wholeheartedly, Declan; digital
>cameras suck because they are in their infancy.
You might want to read my article on this:
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,33244,00.html
>there is imposed time delay w
To correct myself: My Canon does 5 fps.
>The Nikon D-1, which came out last October, can do 4.5 photos/second. This
>is comparable to all but the speediest analog cameras. My analog Canon can
>only do 8 photos/sec.
52 matches
Mail list logo