No Subject

[Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>]

> Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1984
> From: mgraffam@idsi.net
> To: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Anonymous horseshit again
>
> On Tue, 2 Mar 1999, Anonymous wrote:
>
> > you're fuckin brilliant.  a genius, i say!
> 
> Heh. <big inhale, savouring the scent> I love this list. This was actually
> a pretty funny message. Thanks.. been awhile since I had a really decent
> flame directed at me.

hey, what can i say?  yer asshole was big enough for me to fit right in.

> > too bad you don't have the courage to admit you were just wackin off
> > while spewing bullshit to the list...
>
> Damn. You caught me. Oh, by the way.. my preference isn't in she-males, 
> I generally prefer beastiality. I love a good jackass; so maybe you and
> I could hook up?

please insert quarter for another game.

> > -- BrutallyFuckingHonestMonger
>
> Aka. Anonymous; takes a lot of courage to flame anonymously, don't it?

yeah, yeah... like i give a fuck what you think.  just drop to your knees,  
play like a circus seal, and blow me.

> Bah.. all this sort of shit brings up a rather interesting point.. that
> is well, really barely related to crypto at all.. but shit, nothing on
> this list is anyhow, so like it really matters..

you fucking useless crackwhore.  it is ALL about crypto, even if we're just
replying to Bruce's queries about "Cryptic Seductions".

> There are a whole lot of people that will sit around and act like assholes
> once they have a some sort of anonymous channel to do it through. Now,

so?  the only difference between them and you is that we know who you
are, dickhead.  that makes you the dumbass of the whole bunch.

> when anonymous remailers first got popular and started growing, yeah
> there were people that used them basically just for flaming and being
> punks, but I figured that it was the novelty of it that lended itself to

hey.  asshole second rate bullshit artists like you deserve it though, eh?

> that. Not so. :) .. its been a long while since remailers have been up,
> and people still act like assholes. Penet.fi got abused, but it was pretty
> easy to clear up instances in that case due to its nature.

don't even try to bring penet into this, motherfucker.  this is about you
being a full of shit asshole, and nothing more.  if i *really* wanted to
fuck things up, then it would have been done by now.

> Now, looking back at the whole deal.. I see that I was off-base anyhow..

yeah, you were.  so drop to your knees and blow me already.

> prank calls seemed more common than they are nowadays with caller-id
> (or, rather, the perception of caller-id), but the phone system was
> a mature system. People were used to the novelty, its just that flaming
> people can be fun.

"flaming people can be fun" - ok, you're finally catching on.  maybe
i'll pull out and drop my load in yer face instead, out of common
courtesy.

> What I'm getting at is.. I wonder whether or not establishment of
> anonymous identities would be better for keeping the s/n ratio down and
> to keep the abuse of anonymity to a minimum.

you fucking ignorant jackass privacy nazi.  fuck you.

> Obviously, the way of penet is no longer a real option. Free email
> services like those offered by yahoo could be a step in the right
> direction, if the whole system were secured a bit better.

yeah?  fuck you up the yahoo.  if i want a fucking communist freemailer
then i'll get a hotmail acct for you to hack.

> Registering public keys, and then requiring that anonymous messages be
> signed with a registered key could help, but then there is the problem
> of people just making a new key pair for each message.

so where the fuck do you think you're trying to go here then?

YOU'RE GOING NOWHERE, AND REAL FAST TOO.  dumbfuck.

> I can't think of a way that a completely open list like cypherpunks could
> ever be any way other than how it already is.. chaotic.. and that is

you got a fucking problem with chaos?

> a good thing. But I'm thinking about lists that aim to actually have a
> coherent discussion. It would be nice for such a list to be able to accept

"coherent discussion"?  we can have one of those after you blow me.

> anonymous submissions without suffering abuse.

but i enjoy fucking with you.

> Anyone have a suggested method for achieving this?

yeah, reply with another quasi-humorous diatribe, or just log off and kill
yourself.

> Michael J. Graffam (mgraffam@idsi.net)
> "86% of conspiracy theories have some basis in truth... but, oddly enough,
> it's that last 14% that usually gets you killed."
>     --Talas (http://cadvantage.com/~algaeman/conspiracy/public.htm)

...and that last 1% is the fucking truth!


OnYerKneesPlayLikeACircusSealAndBlowMeMonger