This is not "This-is-not-punks" either

[tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)]

At 6:11 PM 2/10/96, Mixmaster wrote:
>Lemeur Alexanderpunks, or perryrants vs. perryisanasspunks,
>or CDAisdumbpunks, it's CYPHERpunks. Could everyone please
>get closer to back on topic, there is work to do. Rant at
>congress, not here!
>XYZ

Is anyone stopping you or anyone else from talking about quadratic
residues, or Fiat-Shamir protocols, or the IETF proceedings? I didn't think
so.

People talk about what is on their mind. This week it's the CDA, a while
back it was Jim Clark, and at various times we have talked about a truly
vast number of subjects. Sometimes we talk about C code (not often), often
we repeat ancient conversations about random numbers and steganography, and
very occasionally we get into a new topic. This is not surprising, echoing
as it does the patterns of conversations in real life.

The scolding by people who think things are "off-topic" is not
constructive. If they think people should be talking about some topic they
consider more appropriate, let them start talking about it.

Crypto is a hard subject, the technical part of it. If the list confined
itself to this subject, very little discussion would take place. A Wei Dai
might announce a new package every few months, someone might ask whether
IDEA is better than Blowfish every couple of weeks, and maybe a Hal Finney
would note that his analysis of RC4 is complete. Not much discussion, given
the "depth" of these subjects.

(And isn't sci.crypt a much better place for these discussions anyway? Why
have the Cypherpunks mailing list at all if the only "appropriate" topics
are those that duplicate what is already going on in sci.crypt?)

Finally, I am always struck by how the most consistently scolding folks
here ("Can't we get back to crypto?") are also the ones most prone to going
off on their own rants when the mood hits them. Perhaps this is what they
fear--the fear that someone else will say something that *must be rebutted*
and thus cause them to go off on their own rant! Instead of ignoring the
words that bother them, they declare that a topic is not suitable.

Worse, they even engage in what psychologists call "magical thinking": they
confuse cause and effect and claim that the actions of others will "cause"
bad things to happen. We see this is the stupid comments along the lines of
"I hope you're happy when the NSA wins, all because you made the list talk
about Vince Foster instead of DES!!!!"

People will talk about what they want to talk about. The way to shift the
focus to what you think should be talked about is to write interesting and
persuasive posts, not decry the topics others think important.

The best way not to have the list "sidetracked" is to not respond to things
you think are off-topic.

Another version of this plaintive wail about topicality is the repetition
of that comforting mantra "Cypherpunks write code." Overused in the extreme
(though based on good ideas, that actually implementing systems is more
interesting and more world-changing than merely discussing theory), this is
used by people who wish others would shut up about some subject. As a way
to have the last word. Sort of like writing, "As I've just finished
explaining to you dullards in this 5-page post about why the Jacobins were
actually proto-Libertarians, I must repeat that "Cypherpunks write code."
So I now ask must ask you to accept what I have written on the French
attitude toward libertarianism and get back to what this list is really
about. If you continue to argue with me, you will be doing the NSA's work
for them." (There's that magical thinking again.)

(Why anyone would want others to shut up is beyond me...this is what
filters are for. Anyone who can't filter out messages, either directly or
by deleting them quickly, probably isn't in a position to "write code"
anyway, so what's the issue? No, what I really think the issue is for these
"control freaks" (to use the accepted term) is that it simply grates on
them that other people are not more like themselves, are not interested in
the same things they are at the same time they are. And they think that by
scolding others they can force them to change their ways. Guess what? It
doesn't work.)

I was recently accused in private mail, and maybe public mail as well, by
someone of "diverting" the list into a discussion of the Hiroshima bomb and
its moral implications. I disagree. When Rich Graves asked originally, "Who
holds up the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as great victories against
tyranny?" I said "Since you ask, I do. A land invasion of Japan would've
likely cost half a million American lives, and perhaps a million or more
Japanese citizen lives, according to comprehensive studies I think are on
the mark."

This simple response--admittedly not related to DES or IETF or even
Netscape--elicited flames, charges of racism, counter-arguments, and such.
So? While I chose to sit out most of that flame war, you didn't hear me
wailing "Can't we just get back to talking about Diffie-Hellman?"

This is what filters are for. And what ignoring threads is for.

I repeat, if you want others to spend more time talking about the things
that you think need talking about, then set an example and begin the
conversation. Don't just childishly wail about what others are talking
about isn't "on charter."

--Tim May, who will continue to write about what he wishes to write about

Boycott espionage-enabled software!
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1  | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."