Re: Will off-topic libertarian bullshit be allowed on the moderated mailing list?

[Toto <toto@sk.sympatico.ca>]

Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> For a long time, cypherpunks mailing list has been plagued by
> two types of irrelevant traffic:
>         2) Off-topic rants about libertarian ideology, guns, poverty,
>            Ebonics, etc etc.
 
  I don't consider discussion of ideologies and social issues to be
irrelevant to 'any' forum.
  Numbers have no soul. The development of the Atomic Bomb took place
within a closed system where the goal was central and the social
implications were, at best, peripheral. The continued development
of Atomic Physics remained in the hands of the 'powers that be',
with its progress hidden from the public, and with no social
discourse on the wide range of issues that would affect the public.
  We ended up with a bunch of guys sitting in cement rooms, holding
keys that would enable them to destroy the world.
  The 'Star Wars' program would have ended up the same way, except
the fools in power were confident enough in their ability to hornswaggle
the public and ramrod into place whatever policies they wanted, that
they had to 'brag' about it, and open it up for discussion.
  When Joe Average shouted, "Hey, Shit-For-Brains, I'm sitting here
trying to feed my kids, and you're pissing all my money away.", the
developers and backers of 'Star Wars' seemed to think that his
complaints were 'off-topic', or 'irrelevant'.

> Both types of messages were equally damaging to the content that I
> consider worth reading: discussions about applications of cryptography,
> protocols and crypto-related code. As a result, most of the people who
> used to talk about cryptosystems do not do so anymore because they moved
> to other, less noisy, forums.

  I've seen several postings from 'newbies', asking perfectly reasonable
questions in regard to cryptography,  and saw them get nothing but 
shit and abuse for answers. I didn't see them ask again.
  As a matter of fact, the only serious, technical, crypto-related 
questions I have asked of anyone on this forum, I have asked by private 
email, after ascertaining that the person seemed both knowledgeable
and sincere about cryptography.
  Perhaps if the 'experts', busy discussing highly-technical areas,
were to take the time to educate those seeking to gain a wider knowledge
of cryptography, then CypherPunks would have a broader base of 
active crypto-related postings.  The more plants that you have in your
garden, the less room there is for weeds.

> It was very sad to see that nobody except Eric Murray wanted to
> seriously try to discuss IPG algorithm, which was in my opinion an
> excellent case study of a home-grown cryptosystem. Eric wrote lots of
> excellent C code to check the "random" number generator, but no one else
> was interested.

  Somebody was interested enough to post a question regarding it, but
I believe he only got one reply, telling him what an idiot he was.
  There were also several people interested enough in some 'code'
that they received as a result of joining this forum, that they
'ran' it, and had their systems damaged, as a result.
  They took a 'roasting' on the forum, which was not really totally
inappropriate, since it came from 'fuck@yourself.up', but I expected
that there would be no shortage of people to help them deal with
this problem in this forum.  Apparently, I was wrong.
  I did my best to help one of them, by private email, and what 
surprised me was that he got no other offers of assistance with
his problem, but rather, continued email informing what a 'dweeb'
he was.
 
> If restrictions on content are to be imposed, it is not only fair
> but also rational to exclude off-topic political rants as well as
> flames. Both of these categories add zero value to accomplishing
> Cypherpunks' mission.

  I think that 'political rants' need to cover a wide range of 
territory in order to deal with an important issue that needs to
be kept in mind in regard to the very purpose of cryptography:
  There is a 'shitload of ratfuckers' out there.
  I re-read Phil Zimmerman's comments in the PGP documentation
every now and again, and although he may say it more concisely
than some of those on the forum, he is saying exactly the same
thing.

  I read some of the well-informed postings, in regard to such things
as export laws and potential end-runs around various regulations,
and they may be fine, but, to me, they represent an incomplete
world-view which needs the added input of those who remind us that,
in the end, there's a big rat-dick waiting for anyone who bends 
over too far in order to read the fine-print.

  I enjoy your postings, I look forward to them in the future.

Toto