Hate speech and censorship
Anonymous
I can warmly recommend Cyberpass.
Cyberpass does not censor political
speech.
They provide anonymous accounts to a considerable low price. The
connection is telnet with a UNIX shell and SSH support. Cyberpass is a
division of Infonex InterNet Services. They have a policy "Go and get a court
order" which is very unusual.
They already host the OSTARA domain
www.ostara.org containing stupid nazi propaganda.
Others I could mention are
Concentric Network Corporation and Panix - Public Network Corporation and
Webcom.
http://www.cyberpass.net
http://www.cris.com http://www.concentric.net
http://www.webcom.com.
I am sure there are others who do not censor.
But these are those I trust most.
Most ISPs are more concerned about pornography than
hate speech.
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Panix is extremely censorous. I know of at least 3 cases where they pulled
plugs on their users because they didn't like the contents of their speech.
(Many people here probably remember Fred Cherry - Panix pulled his plug for
"homophobia".)
chris.com pulled the plug on TRRJC3 (Igor's pal) because of content.
I also wouldn't trust Lance Cottrell. He's selling privacy for the $$, not
for the ideology; he'll bend over the moment he thinks there's more $$ in
bending over, which is usually the case.
Remember how Sameer Parekh's C2Net used to try to peddle a "privacy ISP"
because he failed miserable and diversified into peddiling shitty software
and making idiotic legal threats? He happily pulled plugs bases on content,
while at the same time stating in court papers that he doesn't censor content.
What a pathological liar.
---
<a href="mailto:d...@bwalk.dm.com">Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM</a>
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps
Anonymous
On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
>
> Panix is extremely censorous. I know of at least 3 cases where they pulled
> plugs on their users because they didn't like the contents of their speech.
> (Many people here probably remember Fred Cherry - Panix pulled his plug for
> "homophobia".)
> chris.com pulled the plug on TRRJC3 (Igor's pal) because of content.
I wish you could be a little more specific.
Harrashing email and excessive cross-posting in violation of each UseNet
group charter is not
censorship.
If someone sends a gay an email saying "I will kill you. Look out for the
next gay pride parade" that's is legitimate ground for action.
> I also wouldn't trust Lance Cottrell. He's selling privacy for the $$, not
> for the ideology; he'll bend over the moment he thinks there's more $$ in
> bending over, which is usually the case.
What is wrong selling privacy for money?
Do you have any prof that Lance Cottrell would "bending over" his
principles in favour of money.
> Remember how Sameer Parekh's C2Net used to try to peddle a "privacy ISP"
> because he failed miserable and diversified into peddiling shitty software
> and making idiotic legal threats? He happily pulled plugs bases on content,
> while at the same time stating in court papers that he doesn't censor content.
> What a pathological liar.
I suppose you can back up your claim with documentation.
What court document are you referring as evidence that Sameer Parekh is a
pathological liar?
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) writes:
> On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
>
> >
> > Panix is extremely censorous. I know of at least 3 cases where they pulled
> > plugs on their users because they didn't like the contents of their speech.
>
> > (Many people here probably remember Fred Cherry - Panix pulled his plug for
> > "homophobia".)
> > chris.com pulled the plug on TRRJC3 (Igor's pal) because of content.
> I wish you could be a little more specific.
> Harrashing email and excessive cross-posting in violation of each UseNet
> group charter is not
> censorship.
> If someone sends a gay an email saying "I will kill you. Look out for the
> next gay pride parade" that's is legitimate ground for action.
Panix pulled Fred Cherry's plug because of his Usenet articles criticizing
homosexuals as child molestors and fascist censors.
I am not aware of Fred Cherry ever sending anyone e-mail resembling the
"quote" fabricated the anonymous homosexual.
No wonder John Gilmore is a cocksucker.
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) writes:
>
> On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
>
> > I also wouldn't trust Lance Cottrell. He's selling privacy for the $$, not
> > for the ideology; he'll bend over the moment he thinks there's more $$ in
> > bending over, which is usually the case.
> What is wrong selling privacy for money?
> Do you have any prof that Lance Cottrell would "bending over" his
> principles in favour of money.
If "prof" is supposed to be "proof" then the answer is yes. Lance Cottrell
has spoken many times in favor of content censorship. Witness, for example,
his harrassment of HipCrime.
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) writes:
> > Remember how Sameer Parekh's C2Net used to try to peddle a "privacy ISP"
> > because he failed miserable and diversified into peddiling shitty software
> > and making idiotic legal threats? He happily pulled plugs bases on content,
> > while at the same time stating in court papers that he doesn't censor conte
> > What a pathological liar.
> I suppose you can back up your claim with documentation.
> What court document are you referring as evidence that Sameer Parekh is a
> pathological liar?
I refer, inter alia, to the smelly Arab pulling the plug on net...@c2.net back
when c2 peddling "privacy". The following is from Parekh's own net.scum page:
]Sameer Parekh, sam...@c2.net, pulled the plug on the Net.Scum pages because
]he did not like their content. At about the same time Sameer was sued by the
]Software Publishers Association because his computer was being used by
]his friends to distribute pirated software. Sameer claimed in court papers
]that he exercises no control over his users' contents. He clearly lied:
]
]>From sameer Thu Oct 24 10: 34:59 1996
]>Received: (from sameer@localhost) by blacklodge.c2.net (8.7.6/8.7.3) id
]>KAA05716; Thu, 24 Oct 1996 10:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
]>From: sameer <sam...@c2.net>
]>Message-Id: <1996102417...@blacklodge.c2.net>
]>Subject: Re: www.c2.net/~netscum/mayt0.html
]>To: net...@c2.net
]>Date: Thu, 24 Oct 1996 10:34:58 -0700 (PDT)
]>Cc: sam...@c2.net
]>In-Reply-To: <3279b6dd....@mail.c2.net> from "net...@c2.net" at "Oct
]> 24, 96 00:26:22 am"
]>X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL22 (25)]
]>MIME-Version: 1.0
]>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII
]>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
]>
]> I'm sorry. If you don't remove the illegal web pages we're
]>going to be forced to shut off your account.
]>
]>> Dear Sameer,
]>>
]>> What was reported to you was mistaken. The referenced page contains no
]>> libel, and all the claims therein are factually correct and can be proved
]>> easily by browing public documents in DejaNews and AltaVista.
]>>
]>> Good luck in your SPA lawsuit!!
]>>
]>>
]>> On Wed, 23 Oct 1996 12:41:53 -0700 (PDT), sameer <sam...@c2.net> posted:
]>>
]>> > The URL in the subject (http://www.c2.net/~netscum/mayt0.html)
]>> > was reported to us as illegal libel. Please note that our policies
]>> > forbid any illegal activity on the site. Please remove this page as
]>> > soon as possible. Thank you.
]>> >
]>> > --
]>> > Sameer Parekh Voice:
]>> 510-986-8770
]>> > C2Net FAX:
]>> 510-986-8777
]>> > The Internet Privacy Provider
]>> > http://www.c2.net/ sam...@c2.net
]>> >
]>>
]>
]>
]>--
]>Sameer Parekh Voice: 510-986-8770
]>C2Net FAX: 510-986-8777
]>The Internet Privacy Provider
]>http://www.c2.net/ sam...@c2.net
Note that Parekh pulled netscum's plug in October, 1996, because he didn't
like the contents of a web page critical of Timmy C. May,
If you review the Cyperpunks archives from that time, you will see that
Parekh was being sued by the Software Publishers Association, was whining all
over the mailing list and asking for "petitions" in his defense, and was
claiming that he exercises no control over the content on C2net.
Is that proof enough for you that the smelly Arab is a pathological liar?
Robert A. Costner
At 10:58 AM 12/20/97 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
>I also wouldn't trust Lance Cottrell. He's selling privacy for the $$, not
>for the ideology; he'll bend over the moment he thinks there's more $$ in
>bending over, which is usually the case.
It's nice to give away privacy for free. Free turkey dinners at
Thanksgiving are nice as well. But someone has to foot the bill. Perhaps
with a Thanksgiving dinner everyone thanks you. Of the many remailer
related phone calls I received, none of them had a "thank you" in them.
More of the "I'm calling the police, FBI, my lawyer, my friends, the Better
Business Bureau, the Attorney General, a higher up, and the SPA. blah,
blah, blah..."
It costs money to run a remailer. When we recently asked for $2,000 in
donations to improve the Cracker remailer, we received about $800 over two
month period. Just as there are free ISPs, and public access ISPs like
Seattle Community Network and Virtually Wired, there are free remailers.
But this is not the business model most ISPs enjoy. Perhaps Lance Cottrell
has come across the proper business model for running a remailer. Have the
users pay for it.
The Cracker remailer operates mainly off of money I pulled out of my
pocket. And I'm not really a user, or the person who runs it. We had some
donations of course, and we've had other inkind donations, like free legal
services. I'm still waiting to see a lawsuit on Cracker, or the police to
show up with a warrant.
I think it's great that Lance Cottrell has people pay to use his remailer.
I wish another fifty companies would spring up and do the same. Doing it
for ideology is nice, but the phone company, nor the backbone companies, or
others really seem to like payments in ideology. They seem to want a
legible signature on a check.
-- Robert Costner Phone: (770) 512-8746
Electronic Frontiers Georgia mailto:po...@efga.org
http://www.efga.org/ run PGP 5.0 for my public key
Lance Cottrell
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
At 10:58 AM -0500 12/20/97, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
<SNIP>
>I also wouldn't trust Lance Cottrell. He's selling privacy for the $$, not
>for the ideology; he'll bend over the moment he thinks there's more $$ in
>bending over, which is usually the case.
>Remember how Sameer Parekh's C2Net used to try to peddle a "privacy ISP"
>because he failed miserable and diversified into peddiling shitty software
>and making idiotic legal threats? He happily pulled plugs bases on content,
>while at the same time stating in court papers that he doesn't censor content.
>What a pathological liar.
>
I am very glad some helpful anonymous individual forwarded this note to me.
These days I only read a filtered version of the Cypherpunks, although I
host one of the unfiltered nodes, and Dr. Vulis has been in my kill file
for some time.
I am a bit startled at his assumption that because I charge for my services
that I would bend at the first sign of trouble or pressure. Allow me to
clarify my business interests. The Mixmaster software I created is free and
licensed under GNU Copyleft. I do not and never have charged for the use of
the Mixmaster remailer I run at mixm...@remail.obscura.com. At this time
we charge for anonymous ISP accounts, shell accounts and web hosting, and
for the Anonymizer. I don't think anyone would every expect me to offer
free Internet services with technical support. We also charge for
unrestricted use of The Anonymizer (a free unlimited trial with 30 sec.
delay is available to anyone). We did not want to charge for use of the
Anonymizer, but the advertising supported model for the service fell
through when advertisers turned out to be smart enough to see that the
whole point of The Anonymizer is to keep them from gathering the data which
is the whole reason the like to advertise on the Internet in the first
place. The Anonymizer is not like a remailer in the resources it consumes.
I have run remailers from home machines over 14.4kbps modems. The
Anonymizer will overload a T1 (up to 1000 ms ping times) by its self. This
translates to approximately $2000 of generosity per month, more than I can
afford by a wide margin.
As to my ideology, I think the fact that I run many of my services for
free, and the rest with a limited free option, and that I could double or
triple my income if I closed shop and went to work for someone else, speak
for themselves.
As long as privacy tools are free and run by hobbyists they remain, on the
whole, toys. Fees allow me to have several people working full time to
provide technical support, software development, and other services.
I think anonymity is important. I have thought so for many years. I have
put my time and efforts where my mouth is. I think that my contributions
have not been insignificant. I hope that the public feels that privacy is
important too, or I am wasting my time. The fact that they are willing to
pay for strong privacy and anonymity shows that they do.
Dr. Vulis' attack on Sameer was much worse than his attack on me. It is
totally off base. Sameer handed off most of his "privacy ISP" business to
me. The reason for this was not that it was failing, but that the software
side of the business was so much more successful. About half his efforts
were going toward a service generating about 10% of his revenues. Not to
focus his efforts would have been very poor business practice.
I don't care to be involved in long flame wars, or pointless and endless
arguments, so I will not be following this thread on the list. My record,
reputation, and positions are well documented, and easy to research. Anyone
who wants the truth should have no difficulty finding it.
-Lance Cottrell
- ----------------------------------------------------------
Lance Cottrell lo...@infonex.com
PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server.
http://www.infonex.com/~loki/
"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly
it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice
weasels come."
--Nietzsche
- ----------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQEVAwUBNJ2fLsogYxMMzklZAQGTVAf9E2X5gbOGsWP93lJiYEOQ2vtlmLhQJFSC
v576ehJoqZZ402eFsT/rS/NQSYkknRr6isXKfvDarRnHy39ARfYQuZxmeSH9qOyP
rIvYG6jCExubGoNFlFds4mEP/7SOrijnkaSqt1M0lrYjKHVhWcP1JjwRsRlCy2D2
sG+DzufbwoVLvx8cGtT5VhrMH/ZTCud98m7/0XMIL7+Ss7HzqGFtr/WIjwXRUmmK
eOct3is9p1SPeMgpkhkZCObvBwi/lNxWVU/LqhXzmRxQgbM85AST5omp2WWGk7Xp
ODmNmmzwNuVPvJGAchHibQpqxApheyK2yQRLTjT5foryT12mwV9xbQ==
=bsCt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
hipcrime@feedme
The illustrious Dr. Dimitri Vulis KotM wrote:
>
> nob...@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) writes:
> >
> > On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> >
> > > I also wouldn't trust Lance Cottrell.
> > > He's selling privacy for the $$, not
> > > for the ideology; he'll bend over the moment he thinks there's
> > > more $$ in
> > > bending over, which is usually the case.
>
> > What is wrong selling privacy for money?
> > Do you have any prof that Lance Cottrell would "bending over" his
> > principles in favour of money.
>
> If "prof" is supposed to be "proof" then the answer is yes.
> Lance Cottrell has spoken many times in favor of content censorship.
> Witness, for example, his harrassment of HipCrime.
>
Must agree (WHOLEHEARTEDLY), that Lance Cotrell was instrumental
in getting HipCrime censored from V-Sites.NET, and continued to
propound his version of "netiquette" continuously. He's of the
opinion that the "net" should "punish" those that he doesn't
agree with (see the attachment below).
... HipCrime
----
Return-Path: <owner-remail...@c2.net>
Received: from infinity.c2.org by precipice.v-site.net (8.6.10/SM-8.6.4)
id MAA14455; Sat, 14 Sep 1996 12:31:15 -0700
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by infinity.c2.org (8.7.4/8.6.9)
X-Sender: lo...@sirius.infonex.com
Message-Id: <v03007800ae60a9c4d1f2@[206.170.115.3]>
In-Reply-To: <1996091417...@rintintin.Colorado.EDU>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 1996 11:30:50 -0700
From: Lance Cottrell <lo...@infonex.com>
Subject: Re: Nonsense, absolute nonsense... [Fwd: HipCrime and Art]
Cc: remailer-...@c2.org
Sender: owner-remail...@c2.net
Precedence: bulk
Status:
Content-Length: 3335
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Allow me to make this more concrete. I don't want see any of this fucking
shit in my mailbox just because I have a mailto link on my Mixmaster page.
Is that sufficiently clear? I don't want the government involved, I think
the net can inflict appropriate punishment.
-Lance
----------------------------------------------------------
Lance Cottrell lo...@obscura.com
PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server.
Mixmaster, the next generation remailer, is now available!
http://www.obscura.com/~loki/Welcome.html or FTP to obscura.com
"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly
it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice
weasels come."
--Nietzsche
----------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hungry for NEWSGROUPS??? USE feedME.ORG
Read and Post to 30,000 groups through feedME.ORG
FREE FREE FREE http://www.feedME.ORG FREE FREE FREE
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Lance Cottrell <lo...@infonex.com> writes:
> At 10:58 AM -0500 12/20/97, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> <SNIP>
> >I also wouldn't trust Lance Cottrell. He's selling privacy for the $$, not
> >for the ideology; he'll bend over the moment he thinks there's more $$ in
> >bending over, which is usually the case.
> >Remember how Sameer Parekh's C2Net used to try to peddle a "privacy ISP"
> >because he failed miserable and diversified into peddiling shitty software
> >and making idiotic legal threats? He happily pulled plugs bases on content,
> >while at the same time stating in court papers that he doesn't censor conten
> >What a pathological liar.
> >
>
> I am very glad some helpful anonymous individual forwarded this note to me.
> These days I only read a filtered version of the Cypherpunks, although I
> host one of the unfiltered nodes, and Dr. Vulis has been in my kill file
> for some time.
I presume he won't see this response then.
> I am a bit startled at his assumption that because I charge for my services
> that I would bend at the first sign of trouble or pressure. Allow me to
No, this is not my reasoning. I've concluded, based on the analysis of
numerous quotes from Cottrell, that he sounds like an opponent of anonymity,
privacy, and free speech (witness his attacks on "HipCrime", his censorship
of "spam" (the term now used by censors to describe any content they don't
approve of) et al - just use DejaNews). An "anti-spammer" selling "privacy"
services is a lot like a devout nun working as a prostitute to support
her convent - she does it for the money, but her heart won't be in it.
Of course I respect lance's right to hold whatever beliefs he chooses and
to oppose free speech. However I advise anyone against trusting a person
who states that he opposes "spam" (defined as any content he doesn't like).
If you use "Anonymizer", Lance will know who you are, and he states on his
web site that he will reveal your identity if you "abuse" his service (which
might well mean simply expressing an opinion that Lance doesn't like and
judges to be "spam").
if Lance Cottrell wants to salvage the remains of his credibility, he should
state unequivocally that he supports "spam" as defined by Chris Lewis.
[snip]
> Dr. Vulis' attack on Sameer was much worse than his attack on me. It is
> totally off base. Sameer handed off most of his "privacy ISP" business to
> me. The reason for this was not that it was failing, but that the software
> side of the business was so much more successful. About half his efforts
> were going toward a service generating about 10% of his revenues. Not to
> focus his efforts would have been very poor business practice.
As documented before, Sameer closed shop on C2net as a "privacy" ISP at
about the same time (Oct 96) as
a) Software Publishers Association sued him for software privacy and he
was claiming in court papers that he doesn't censor content (as well as
whining on this mailing list and begging for help)
b) he simultaneously pulled the plug on one of his subscribers because
he didn't like the contents of that subscibers's web page, which expressed
critical opinions about Timmy May.
This proves, in my opinion, that Sameer is a pathological liar.
Further his settlement with SPA was a miserable failure for him,
Sameer is also notorious for making legal threats against those who question
the security of the crypto software he peddles. The fact that he dispatches
his shysters to make threats, instead of even trying to answer our concerns
with facts, shows how much he himself believes in his products.
Paul Bradley
> Sameer is also notorious for making legal threats against those who question
> the security of the crypto software he peddles. The fact that he dispatches
> his shysters to make threats, instead of even trying to answer our concerns
> with facts, shows how much he himself believes in his products.
Yes, those on the list a few months ago (around the time the list moved
from cocksucker John Gilmores toad.com to the distributed list format)
will remember censorous arab Sameer Parekh for sending abusive mail
threatening legal action to those who criticised the security of his
companies "stronghold" firewall, which I among others suspect to contain
govt. backdoors, uneducated and foolish arabs such as Parekh should stick
to what they do best: running kebab shops and/or selling cheap fake rolex
watches to tourists.
Datacomms Technologies data security
Paul Bradley, Pa...@fatmans.demon.co.uk
Pa...@crypto.uk.eu.org, Pa...@cryptography.uk.eu.org
Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/
Email for PGP public key, ID: FC76DA85
"Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"
Anonymous
On behalf of the non-racist cypherpunks, please accept an apology for
Paul Bradley's racist message:
> uneducated and foolish arabs such as Parekh should stick
> to what they do best: running kebab shops and/or selling cheap fake rolex
> watches to tourists.
This does not reflect the mainstream view on the list. Cypherpunks
understand that disparaging the racial background of others is a weak
and invalid form of argument.
While it may be appropriate to criticize actions taken during the list
moderation experiment, casting the issue in racial terms only reveals
the ignorance and bigotry of the writer.
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
ich...@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:
> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> > Paul Bradley <pa...@fatmans.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > > Yes, those on the list a few months ago (around the time the list moved
> > > from cocksucker John Gilmores toad.com to the distributed list format)
> > > will remember censorous arab Sameer Parekh for sending abusive mail
> > > threatening legal action to those who criticised the security of his
> > > companies "stronghold" firewall, which I among others suspect to contain
> > > govt. backdoors, uneducated and foolish arabs such as Parekh should stick
> > > to what they do best: running kebab shops and/or selling cheap fake rolex
> > > watches to tourists.
> >
> > Sameer parekh sounds like he lives by the Arab proverb: "Women for sons,
> > boys for pleasure, but a camel for sheer extasy".
>
> I guess I am missing something, but what is so good about camels?
I don't know - you'd have to ask Sameer Parekh. Does he keep one in his
C2Net office, and is it a male or a female camel?
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Anonymous <nob...@REPLAY.COM> writes:
> On behalf of the non-racist cypherpunks, please accept an apology for
> Paul Bradley's racist message:
>
> > uneducated and foolish arabs such as Parekh should stick
> > to what they do best: running kebab shops and/or selling cheap fake rolex
> > watches to tourists.
>
> This does not reflect the mainstream view on the list. Cypherpunks
> understand that disparaging the racial background of others is a weak
> and invalid form of argument.
>
> While it may be appropriate to criticize actions taken during the list
> moderation experiment, casting the issue in racial terms only reveals
> the ignorance and bigotry of the writer.
Politically correct shit like this reveals the stupidity and the ignorance of
its writer. no wonder he hides behind an anonymous remailer, afraid to sign
his own name on such crap. However his writing style is unmistakable that of
the cowardly liar Sandy "moderator" Sandfart (spit) from C2net (a boot-licking
employee of the smelly Arab crypto-snake-oil peddler Sameer Parekh (spit)).
ObHateSpeech: Kill all faggots and/or politicians.
Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Paul Bradley <pa...@fatmans.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > Sameer is also notorious for making legal threats against those who questio
> > the security of the crypto software he peddles. The fact that he dispatches
> > his shysters to make threats, instead of even trying to answer our concerns
> > with facts, shows how much he himself believes in his products.
>
> Yes, those on the list a few months ago (around the time the list moved
> from cocksucker John Gilmores toad.com to the distributed list format)
> will remember censorous arab Sameer Parekh for sending abusive mail
> threatening legal action to those who criticised the security of his
> companies "stronghold" firewall, which I among others suspect to contain
> govt. backdoors, uneducated and foolish arabs such as Parekh should stick
> to what they do best: running kebab shops and/or selling cheap fake rolex
> watches to tourists.
Sameer parekh sounds like he lives by the Arab proverb: "Women for sons,
boys for pleasure, but a camel for sheer extasy".
---
Adam Back
Paul Bradley <pa...@fatmans.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Yes, those on the list a few months ago [...] will remember
> censorous arab Sameer Parekh for sending abusive mail threatening
> legal action to those who criticised the security of his companies
> "stronghold" firewall,
Stronghold is a web-server, not a firewall.
> which I among others suspect to contain govt. backdoors,
Would you or Dimitri care to be more specific?
Is there a specific flaw you have in mind?
Are there any features of Stronghold which you think hinder third
party validation?
Is anything about C2Net policies which you think hinders open review?
(Yes we know about the legal threats Dimitri received, personally I
consider this is a mistake on C2Net's part).
Adam
? the Platypus {aka David Formosa}
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Mon, 22 Dec 1997, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
> > Sameer parekh sounds like he lives by the Arab proverb: "Women for sons,
> > boys for pleasure, but a camel for sheer extasy".
>
> I guess I am missing something, but what is so good about camels?
You are clearly not a perl programer.
- --
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header.
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep. ex-net.scum and proud
You Say To People "Throw Off Your Chains" And They Make New Chains For
Themselves? --Terry Pratchett.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNJ7Gi6QK0ynCmdStAQEqhAQAp08IAoRdLzYkEyf3tmy0ClzDsFZL8y0i
SfrYhx0oANo2hpI3kC5VySZ/XClmuANaszfFIYNeIzp4jTbjfW3HFSQAFrJ6ToF1
rgvqPc75XZVh/EX+0Cz8pFJlwHRFKGTO+QPAjlSjdNg8b7vR51Adx5MZaFeGJ06G
5vrw2aVgmMM=
=GbVi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Anonymous
Dimitri Vulis writes:
> Perhaps the state shouldn't be in the business of providing library services
> to begin with; then there will be no 1st amendment issue, and if you don't
> like the censorware used by a private library, why, use another private
> library, or start your own.
>
> (Nor would there be an issue with private libraries refusing service to
> readers who smell bad.)
How ironic that Vulis supports the right of private libraries to refuse
service to bad-smelling readers, while whining about Gilmore's refusal
to allow Gilmore's own private machine to pass Vulis' foul-smelling posts.
Private actions are not censorship, and Gilmore had the right to do
anything he wanted with toad.com. Likewise list members had every right
to move to other hosts.
Vulis's infantile name-calling is easily seen to be totally lacking in
justification, unsurprising given his demonstrated lack of reasoning
abilities on this issue.
Paul Bradley
> Paul Bradley <pa...@fatmans.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > Yes, those on the list a few months ago [...] will remember
> > censorous arab Sameer Parekh for sending abusive mail threatening
> > legal action to those who criticised the security of his companies
> > "stronghold" firewall,
>
> Stronghold is a web-server, not a firewall.
My mistake, memory fails under the influence of alcohol.
> > which I among others suspect to contain govt. backdoors,
>
> Would you or Dimitri care to be more specific?
Not really, This was just flamebait, I have no strong opinion one way or
the other about stronghold, and have never looked at the product.
> (Yes we know about the legal threats Dimitri received, personally I
> consider this is a mistake on C2Net's part).
This is the sole reason I have a low opinion of C2Net, hardly a reason to
suspect their products are insecure you might say, but certainly a valid
reason to treat their products with caution, as it shows a censorous
trait in the company.
Paul Bradley
> On behalf of the non-racist cypherpunks, please accept an apology for
> Paul Bradley's racist message:
One behalf of the cypherpunks who believe in free speech and calling a
spade a spade, I appologies for the anonymous PC coward posting this rubbish.
> > uneducated and foolish arabs such as Parekh should stick
> > to what they do best: running kebab shops and/or selling cheap fake rolex
> > watches to tourists.
>
> This does not reflect the mainstream view on the list.
You must have mistaken me for someone who gives a fuck.
> Cypherpunks
> understand that disparaging the racial background of others is a weak
> and invalid form of argument.
Cypherpunks flame people where it is appropriate, and often where it is
not, cypherpunks do whatever the fuck they like, how do you know what
cypherpunks understand?
> While it may be appropriate to criticize actions taken during the list
> moderation experiment, casting the issue in racial terms only reveals
> the ignorance and bigotry of the writer.
Hi Sandy, "moderation experiment", unmistakable C2Net speak. Freespeech
doubleplus ungood, moderation cypherpunkwise doubleplus good.
I am neither ignorant nor bigoted, and have nothing against arabs as long
as they are not censorous.