Re: <plonk> now! Grabbe, X, re. Foster, NSA, BCCI, etc.

["Donald M. Kitchen" <don@cs.byu.edu>]

Perry:
> This is cypherpunks, a mailing list for people interested in
> cryptography and its social implications. This is not "Conspiracy
> Buffs Digest: All The Silly Conspiracy Theories You Can Read".
> 
> Please take the noise postings elsewhere.

I am very much in agreement. I am not interested in reading this stuff
in the cpunks mail list. Here is what I consider to be acceptable ways
to send this stuff to the people on cpunks:

1) NOT AT ALL

2) A pointer and explaination. For example:
   "Hey, there is an article that describes the Foster case, which 
    also includes proof that the NSA [something relevant to cpunks] and
    it's on alt.kooks.conspiracy posted by John Spook, msg id <msg123.host>
 
3) A summary of the parts relevant to cpunks. For example:
   "A recent 50-page NYT book on whitewater mentions that Hubbard used 
    Nautilus to talk over the phone with Ms. Clinton"

In the past, method 3 (summarizing) has proven very effective for some
newspaper articles on things.

Don

Note: this is not meant to release me from guilt of having posted
off-topic and innane things in the past (and future), but at least I did
so with little bandwidth.