Debate on this list

["Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>]

At 3:15 PM -0800 12/11/96, Huge Cajones Remailer wrote:

>Didn't Tim May originate the "Generation of Science" thread or,
>earlier, the sliderule thread?  I don't think either topic can said to
>be strictly cypherpunk unless a discrete logarithm sliderule has been
>invented.
>
>The truth is that I enjoyed those threads as did most others on the
>list.  I would like to see more like them.  And, I dare say that my
>posts are more worthwhile than 7 out of 8 posts we've been seeing on
>the list lately.

Of course I write stuff that is not necessarily "crypto relevant"...we all
do. The list is a discussion of issues important to the members of the
list: there has never been a formal charter or set of rules on what is
"allowed" and what is "not allowed." However, traditionally libertarian vs.
socialist debates are seldom useful, and about as welcome on any list (even
libertarian lists) as are debates about abortion, gun control, and other
such contentious issues.

And my point about preferring a "well-formed question" was related to what
I said about the huge back-and-forth debate between Red Rackham and Matthew
M., which I found too convoluted to follow. I favor well--formed essays; I
try my best to write such essays myself.

Recall that I specifically said: "Many of the posts by Matt M. and "Red
Rackham" and others have been so massive, containing paragraph-by-paragraph
rebuttals of political and ethical points, that I've just given up on
trying to
follow the points." This is what sparked my request for well-formed
questions. Interestingly, Matthew M. did just this, in private e-mail. He
phrased several questions about crypto anarchy, and implications for the
underclasses, and I answered his questions. He is free to post his
questions and my answers if he wishes to.


>Point 1: You obviously find the subject interesting enough to comment
>on it.  Others probably also find it interesting.

Personally, I think the implications of strong cryptography for "redlining"
are indeed on-topic, and interesting. I said as much, and have written
several articles yesterday and today on precisely this topic. What I
_don't_ find very on-topic, personally, are rambling debates about social
justice, labels such as "bigoted" and "racist," and what governments should
do to subsidize those who have failed to prepare themselves for the modern
world.

>Point 2: Excuse me if I am wrong, but your comments look to me to be
>precisely on topic for this list, anyway.

Thank you. I said it was interesting, just not the "traditional libertarian
debate" about social justice and "what to do about the poor." It is rarely
fruitful.

>This obsession of "on topic/off topic" is not healthy for the list.
>It stifles brainstorming and the free exchange of ideas.

I'm not so obsessed with this...you must be knew to the list, or you'd've
known of my views on this.

>P.S. Sorry for the length of some of the messages.  That Miszewski had
>the temerity to actually stand up for his beliefs, so it was
>unavoidable.

I have a feeling not more than 5 people even skimmed your extremely long
and detailed messages replying to Matthew (in my case, I gave up after
several screenfuls, with my scroll bar showing I was only partly through
the message!). You might consider instead just picking a couple of his
points and using them to make your own points...responding to every single
paragraph is rarely effective.

--Tim May


Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside"
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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: 2^1398269     | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."