On November 2, 2019 5:28:58 AM PDT, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

For those who missed the memo, in Australia, "cunt" is the most endearing term used between two blokes who are great friends and have been for a long time.

Between absolutely anyone else at all, the word is one of, if not the, worst possible slurs.

When in polite company, it is strongly advisable to not use the term at all, even when your best long term friend rocks up, since others may not take so kindly to such colloquial speach in such situations.

Aussie Thomas Violence says: "I love little cultural differences, like how Americans are super offended by the word cunt but here in Australia we're super offended by school children being slaughtered with automatic weapons" Later, on twitter: "heaps of replies i'd like to get to here but i have to turn off the notifications, i'm too busy denying christ, implementing white genocide, making christmas illegal, kneeling during the anthem, and reading up on the automatic gun known as the Assault Rifle 15" https://twitter.com/thomas_violence/status/1002373759167107073?s=19 Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail

On Saturday, November 2, 2019, 08:11:34 PM PDT, Razer wrote: On November 2, 2019 5:28:58 AM PDT, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

For those who missed the memo, in Australia, "cunt" is the most endearing term used between two blokes who are great friends and have been for a long time.

Between absolutely anyone else at all, the word is one of, if not

...

the, worst possible slurs.

...

When in polite company, it is strongly advisable to not use the term at all, even when your best long term friend rocks up, since others may not take so kindly to such colloquial speach in such situations.

Aussie Thomas Violence says:

"I love little cultural differences, like how Americans are super offended by the word cunt but here in Australia we're super offended by school children being slaughtered with automatic weapons" Sure he said that!  The current difference between America and Australia is that the latter generally banned guns a few years ago, and mostly America hasn't done that.  It's called the "Second Amendment", and my interpretation fairly closely agrees with the 2008 Supreme Court case D.C. v. Heller.  I think that in America, gun laws cannot Constitutionally be any stricter that they were in 1789, when the Bill of Rights of voted, and 1791, when it was ratified by states.  That's the meaning of the term "infringed", with its root-word "fringe".   I assert that this means that the RTKBA cannot be further limited, even around the "fringed".  Why this wording?  Well, if the wording had says, "the right to keep and bear a gun shall not be denied", some slick politician some day would decide that if 'they' banned any gun with more power than 1/4 of a 0.22 pistol, they still hadn't actually DENIED people's rights to own a gun, used singular.   Slick. I can remember about 1966, when "Texas Tower Shooter" Charles Whitman shot people.   It shocked the nation, not merely due to the violence, but because at that time it seemed to be such an astonishing act.   "What has changed", we should ask?  America doesn't have that many more people (and guns) than we did in 1966.  

Later, on twitter: "heaps of replies i'd like to get to here but i have to turn off the notifications, i'm too busy denying christ, implementing white genocide, making christmas illegal, kneeling during the anthem, and reading up on the automatic gun known as the Assault Rifle 15" Would we know if that email barrage was actually just a 'false-flag' flood by people simulating some other group of people harassing somebody?   "Fake hate crimes" are extremely common, primarily because they are easy to simulate, and if the person doing that is halfway intelligent, he or she probably won't get caught.   ("Hide the noose in your pocket, walk to the door, look around to make sure nobody is looking and there are no security cameras, and then drop the noose!  Try not to leave any DNA!")

thomas violence on Twitter Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail | | | | | | | | | | | thomas violence on Twitter “I love little cultural differences, like how Americans are super offended by the word cunt but here in Australi... | | |

On Sunday, November 3, 2019, 01:52:45 AM PDT, Steven Schear wrote:

...

"I think that in America, gun laws cannot Constitutionally be any stricter that they were in 1789, when the Bill of Rights of voted, and 1791, when it was ratified by states." Of course they are more strict.

I will try to be clearer.  In virtually any environment, there is "the way things are supposed to be" and there is "the way things actually are".  One major source of this discrepancy, in the American gun-rights situation, is that until 2010, in the Supreme Court decision McDonald v. Chicago   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago   the Bill of Rights had continued to be only selectively enforced on the States themmselves.   There was a very long period of the practice called "incorporation"  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights    So, for essentially over 200 years, states didn't necessarily feel bound by the wording of the Second Amendment.   I never thought that this "incorporation" concept made any sense.  It effectively amount to "exclusion" of the principles of the BOR to the States, despite the fact the requisite 3/4s of the then-existing states had ratified the relevant Amendment.  What, exactly, did their "ratifications" actually mean, if not to comply with the wording of the Amendments they had just ratified.   If those Amendments could be interpreted to apply to those States, of course. It's further illogically applied:  Notice that the 1st Amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law...".  Apparently, the Federal Congress, that is.  Not the State legislatures, it seems.   So,if any Amendment is written so as to seem to apply only to the Federal Government, it must be the First!   Yet, there has long been essentially no dispute that the 1st Amendment ALSO applies to the States themselves.   That is certainly a good idea, but I dare you to try to find out the actual, Constitutional justification for deciding that's the way things have to be done.   And when the Second Amendment declares that it "shall not be infringed", there is no indication at all that the ratifying States immediately intended to exclude themselves from this obligation,   Where did that idea come from?  >When these Amendments were written each state had militias controlled by their governors, I don't think that's precisely true.  Saying that "each state had militias" can be interpeted in at least two ways:1.   There are militias acting within the territory of each state.       OR2.   [The Government] of each state owns or controls [some of?] the militias acting within each respective state. These are distinctly different concepts.  I think State Constitutions generally give such Governors power "to call out the militia".   But the way law works, that does not automatically mean that those militias become obliged to obey that call.  I realize that might seem to be a fine distinction, especially to a non-lawyer, but the way American Constitutions are interpreted, the absence of a explicit reference to an power has (at least used to be!) interpereted as the ABSENCE of that power.   When States wrote their Constitutions, they (I think correctly) recognized that if "the Government" was to EVER have the authority to "call out" a militia, that power had to be listed in the Constitution itself.  And it was.  "and these rights were linked to militia membership." That reasoning is excluded by the 2008 Heller and the 2010 McDonald decisions.  Sure, that was long the position of "the powers that be", and the chattering leftist political classes especially, but the Heller decision destroyed that concept forever.    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/#tab-opinion-1962738 

From the Heller decision:    "Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause (“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).[Footnote 3] “ ‘It is nothing unusual in acts … for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’ ” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)). Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose.[Footnote 4]"     ===========end of Heller quote======================

This which dramatically changed in 1903, when Congress became Dicks.

Some would argue that Congress was ALWAYS Dicks.   And I couldn't disagree,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

Since then the restrictions have only gotten tighter. Today, there are effectively no militias.

Returning to the "the way things are SUPPOSED to be" vs.  "the way things are actually done" issue, I have explained that:  "Incorporation" wasn't applied to the 2nd Amendment until 2010, and maybe not even today!   I argue that in 2010, State legislatures became all obligated to "clean house" of newly-discovered-to-be-unconstitutional laws, due to the McDonald decision.  But to my knowledge, none of them ever did so.   Implicitly, this means that they are thumbing their Legislative noses at the Supreme Court.  As if they are saying, "Just try to make me!... Nyah! Nyah!! Nyah!!!".   But that doesn't mean that my interpretation is wrong, nor Heller's, nor McDonald's.  Just that those interpretations aren't currently RESPECTED by legislatures, as reflected in their state laws.  So while you can certainly point out hundreds or even thousands of current State laws, their existence doesn't mean that they don't violate the current interpretation of the U.S. Constitution by the U.S. Supreme Court.

https://mises.org/wire/when-state-governors-tried-take-back-control-national...

I interpret this change to mean these rights originally conferred to the states now Constitutionally belong to the nation's individuals.

Well, since the late 1800's, there has been the foundation of the 'National Guard' organization(s) in presumably each state.  But it is merely an implication to suggest things like, 'now we don't need militias', or worse, 'we can now ban militias, since the National Guard substitutes for it."  Or even worse, 'since we no longer have militias, none of the 2nd Amendment rights are valid anymore.'    (I'm not suggesting you said these things, merely that such implicit arguments have frequently been cited by (mostly liberal?) debaters, and much of the clueless populace, lacking any sort of legal education, accepts them without apparent question.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zruWCuNmWV8 "You come in here with a skull full of mush, and you leave thinking like a lawyer",    The Paper Chase, 1973.   When I originally saw this movie, in the theater, I had no idea how accurate this statement was.  And of course, I also had no idea that I would eventually be giving myself much of a lawyer's legal education 30 years later, and then understanding what "Professor Kingsfield" meant. Yes, there IS something which could be called "thinking like a lawyer".  Figuring out the precise meaning of words, sentences, and paragraphs.  But as importantly, the ability to understand (and reject) tantalizingly attractive implications that might actually not be a proper way of thinking of some issue.  Just because a Governor may have the authority to 'call out the militia', does not necessarily mean that the militia is obliged to obey him.   Yes, that's a hard concept to grasp.  From the Wikipedia article:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia   "Militias thus can be military or paramilitary, depending on the instance. Some of the contexts in which the term "militia" is used include: - Forces engaged in defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws. [3] - The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms. - A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up. - A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation. [end of quote from Wikipedia] Now, a state might hypothetically have a LAW requiring a militia member to respond to a call.   But that law would not necessarily be Constitutional, and that law might be interpreted by a court that it violates the 2nd Amendment.  Such laws, of course, have been rarely, if ever, actually challenged and decided on.  (There is virtually never a NEED to:  If there is a genuine emergency, no doubt that most militia people would respond, and the few who fail to respond would be ignored). The Founding Fathers, being a product of the then-recent American Revolution, deeply distrusted centralized government power.   Their view of "a militia", I believe, was that of armed force of neighbors who were entitled (virtually by natural rights) to band together to defend their community.  NOT a group of people who only got that power to group from government, with the idea that this could be taken away at a moment's notice, and who were somehow obliged to act only under their State's beck and call, and could be demanded to show up on cue. I think the (certainly the current!) Supreme Court would decide that no, while the Governor had the (positive) authority to 'call out the militia', nevertheless that militia had no obligation at all to obey that call, if that was their choice.   And they might even show up intending to shoot the Governor ! These are the kind of distinctions that few non-lawyers comprehend.             Jim Bell On Sun, Nov 3, 2019, 5:13 AM jim bell wrote: On Saturday, November 2, 2019, 08:11:34 PM PDT, Razer wrote: On November 2, 2019 5:28:58 AM PDT, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

For those who missed the memo, in Australia, "cunt" is the most endearing term used between two blokes who are great friends and have been for a long time.

Between absolutely anyone else at all, the word is one of, if not

...

the, worst possible slurs.

...

When in polite company, it is strongly advisable to not use the term at all, even when your best long term friend rocks up, since others may not take so kindly to such colloquial speach in such situations.

Aussie Thomas Violence says:

"I love little cultural differences, like how Americans are super offended by the word cunt but here in Australia we're super offended by school children being slaughtered with automatic weapons" Sure he said that!  The current difference between America and Australia is that the latter generally banned guns a few years ago, and mostly America hasn't done that.  It's called the "Second Amendment", and my interpretation fairly closely agrees with the 2008 Supreme Court case D.C. v. Heller.  I think that in America, gun laws cannot Constitutionally be any stricter that they were in 1789, when the Bill of Rights of voted, and 1791, when it was ratified by states.  That's the meaning of the term "infringed", with its root-word "fringe".   I assert that this means that the RTKBA cannot be further limited, even around the "fringed".  Why this wording?  Well, if the wording had says, "the right to keep and bear a gun shall not be denied", some slick politician some day would decide that if 'they' banned any gun with more power than 1/4 of a 0.22 pistol, they still hadn't actually DENIED people's rights to own a gun, used singular.   Slick. I can remember about 1966, when "Texas Tower Shooter" Charles Whitman shot people.   It shocked the nation, not merely due to the violence, but because at that time it seemed to be such an astonishing act.   "What has changed", we should ask?  America doesn't have that many more people (and guns) than we did in 1966.  

Later, on twitter: "heaps of replies i'd like to get to here but i have to turn off the notifications, i'm too busy denying christ, implementing white genocide, making christmas illegal, kneeling during the anthem, and reading up on the automatic gun known as the Assault Rifle 15" Would we know if that email barrage was actually just a 'false-flag' flood by people simulating some other group of people harassing somebody?   "Fake hate crimes" are extremely common, primarily because they are easy to simulate, and if the person doing that is halfway intelligent, he or she probably won't get caught.   ("Hide the noose in your pocket, walk to the door, look around to make sure nobody is looking and there are no security cameras, and then drop the noose!  Try not to leave any DNA!")

thomas violence on Twitter Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail | | | | | | | | | | | thomas violence on Twitter “I love little cultural differences, like how Americans are super offended by the word cunt but here in Australi... | | | | | | | | | | | | | | thomas violence on Twitter “I love little cultural differences, like how Americans are super offended by the word cunt but here in Australi... | | |

Just because you haven't received your copy yet (or at all) doesn't mean we haven't. Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice Ps. Get psychiatric help

What I do when I'm unsure and want to check, is check the cp archives here: https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/ view by date, and look at the most recent emails. If the email is the archives already, obviously it was received by the list server, and most likely sent out to all subscribers... On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 08:38:12PM +0000, jim bell wrote:

Well, people (?)  have been speaking quite recently about apparent problems with the Cypherpunks list email-acceptance reliability.  Do we (or you?) have any reason to believe such reports are deliberately phony?  I think the large majority of comments I've made recently to CP (days, weeks) have proceeded promptly.  So when I see an aberration, I identify it as such. After about 74 minutes of non-appearance of that message, at least failing to return back to me in a virtually comment free list (indicating that the server can't possibly be 'busy'), I think any logical person familiar with the working of email lists (and specifically CP) would suspect that the sent message had simply been "lost", and the logical response would have been to re-post it, as I did. Yet, you are strongly implying that my interpretation of events was somehow wrong or even illogical.   On Sunday, November 3, 2019, 12:06:56 PM PST, Razer wrote:

...

Just because you haven't received your copy yet (or at all) doesn't mean we haven't. Just because you MAY have received your copy (you might be lying; presumably, we'll hear from others soon enough to determine if my first attempt to send the message actually got through to anyone else) doesn't mean you have a correct position.)  You MIGHT have only seen the second message, which included the original header, and decided to muddy the water and 'score points' by implying that I interpreted events incorrectly.)   And, I note, nobody else responded (yet)  to my recent first attempt to send that message.  Had I received even one such answer,  that would have suggested that the CP server had successfully posted my message.  The absence of any response,  to me, even 74 minutes later, at least doesn't contradict the idea that the CP server had somehow coughed and failed, at least on one email.

...

Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice Ps. Get psychiatric help

Your illogical reactions, could also reflect YOUR need for such psychiatric help.   I, at least, can actually justify my actions and reasoning.  Put simply, I'm believable, and you are not.

On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 12:49:22AM +0000, jim bell wrote:

On Sunday, November 3, 2019, 01:34:48 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

What I do when I'm unsure and want to check, is check the cp archives here:

...

    https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/

...

view by date, and look at the most recent emails.

Unfortunately, your response is (un-?)intentionally hilarious.  It wouldn't have been so a week ago, before I started exposing the most huge scandal of corruption tampering that Cypherpunks archives has ever seen, a massive fabrication of some of the CP archives,  Back then, there was at least the illusion that the CP archives had a minimal level of credibility.  

Jim, corruption and tampering of email archives from 1995, when you were stalked and ultimately jailed for ~13 years pursuant to the paper you wrote, which (per kindly and recently provided information) involved, at the least, a grand jury, is not surprising.

And here, above, you ask me to "check the CP archives".

Yes Jim, checking the official CP archives is basic due diligence if an email you have recently sent, does not appear back to you as a subscriber, via the CP list. And yes, of course it is humorous in the face of your 1995 missing emails :)

Worse, you don't even bother to explain if you actually received

"don't even bother" implies I had the thought to do so, and intentionally discarded that thought, which suggests you are speaking to my intentions in relation to you. In general, it is unwise to speak to the intentions of another. Instead, speak specifically just to the actions of another, and refrain from postulating their intentions - in this way, less folks inclined to emotional reactivity, react emotionally thus causing the discussion to descend into non constructive territory of ad homs, defensiveness, baseless accusations etc. It's not necessarily an easy rule to follow, but it does at least on the surface appear a wise rule to attempt to follow...

the first attempt of my morning email, a claim which at least in principle would have provided a bit of further indication whether my first attempt had actually succeeded, or had failed.   That is obviously the first, most immediate piece of information that you could have done.   

And you didn't.  Remember what 'they' say, "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem".             Jim Bell

On Sunday, November 3, 2019, 06:22:07 PM PST, Greg Newby wrote:

1. MISSING MESSAGES THIS WEEK

Jim: I set your list options to select "ACK" and unselected "nodupes." The impact is that you should get an email acknowledgment whenever a message is accepted and (presumably) distributed and archived. The "nodupes" might have no impact, but it is supposed to quash multiple copies of messages when selected. Yes, I noticed the change before I noticed your mention of it.   Thank you.

Because you sent multiple emails to the list today, I don't have an easy way to check whether there was some sort of problem (like a spam-type rejection) from one of them. If you are ever suspicious that something got blocked or didn't make it, AND can tell me the specific time, I can check the logs. Okay, I hope that service doesn't become necessary,  As I think I said today, I don't recall a prior time (in the last few weeks, at least) where it appeared that one of my postings to CP never eventually appeared or was unusually delayed, although I admit that I don't typically pay close attention since the system has usually been so reliable.  I was alerted to recent talk on the list which suggested some failures, and when I made a posting this morning that apparently had not yet appeared 74 minutes later, and the list appeared virtually dead, I concluded that my first attempt had been lost. As I have mentioned here before, the PGLAF.org server that runs lists.cpunks.org has graylisting and a few other anti-spam measures. But clearly most of your messages are being handled correctly.

Do you have any idea of what I might inadvertently do to a message that might cause it to be rejected?  I have the same message on my computer; I could resend it, but I didn't and don't want to clutter the system with test-junk.

Anyone else who wants to twiddle their list settings can visit https://lists.cpunks.org/mailman/listinfo/cypherpunks (and Jim can email me to revert what's above, if desired). For a few days, I'm happy with the new setting.  I wish these systems alerted me (or themselves) to failures to accept data.  

2. MISSING MESSAGES FROM 1995 As has already been written, the PGLAF server has only hosted the list since around August of 2016. Previously, Riad Wahby hosted the list. I first subscribed in the early 2000s. The archive copies I have at   https://www.petascale.org/cypherpunks/ came from a couple of other people.

My attempt to access the Archive of the CP list, about 4 days ago, was approximately my first in many years.  If I ever accessed it before, I don't even recall why.  4 days ago, I think I just did a google-search for 'cypherpunk archive', and visited that site.  I found a file which appeared to be the correct one for 1995, accessed it (by my Chrome browser), and yet I found virtually no instances of "jim bell", "jimbell@pacifier.com", "ap", or "assassination politics".  Initially, I sure wondered if I must have done something wrong...

For anyone looking at those copies, note that the mbox files have some problems (spam, and some messages with bad headers that can confuse or even crash email clients).

I am unaware if such a thing affected my initial viewing or my later viewings, but since other people seem to be observing the same thing, I think we are all confident that we are seeing the same problem.

It is clear in these archives that the messages that Jim says do not exist, do not exist. There is no obvious evidence of redaction. For example, I wondered whether there would be responses to messages that Jim posted, but not the original messages. I didn't find any. Ditto for the messages from Bill Frezza. Well, my current idea is that all messages:1.  From me.2. To me.3.  Containing references about me.  (yet numerous references to 'bell' remain, when that refers to something other than 'jim bell'.4  containing references to "AP", "assassination politics" are missing.5.  Very rare instances of the text string 'ap', about 15, seem to exist, but those instances are ones in which the meaning is (mostly) 'associated press'.  I recall one reference to 'killer ap', with only one 'p'.  I think these instances must have been intentionally retained. I conclude that a very sophisticated tampering has been done, although perhaps it wouldn't have been too difficult.  If they had:

1.  Erased all threads about AP.2.  then Erased all emails from me or to me, with a very small exceptions, or contained 'assassination politics, or 'jim bell'.3.   Perhaps hand-searched all emails containing 'ap' (or ' ap ') and removed all those in which 'ap' referred to "assassination politics", or 'bell' or 'jim', where I am a subject. It was a thorough job, although anyone unaware of the events of 1995 would probably not have noticed the omissions,.   I have some ideas about why they bothered to do this, but they clearly didn't expect to be able to remove the concept of "assassination politics" from the face of the Earth, especially given the massive references still present in the 1996 archive and (I would hope) for many years thereafter.  This is a genuine mystery, and I am confident that the CP list and CP's in general will be much better off when the full circumstances of this sham are investigated and exposed. 

  ** IF YOU FIND OTHER (different) COPIES of the archive, please get them to me and I'll add them to what's above. I wish I had my 1995-1997-era computer(s), but I don't.

In the early 2000s, the list existed via a series of "cypherpunks distributed remailers" (CDRs). It is absolutely true that the content from each CDR was different: different headers, different time stamps, and different spam.  Wouldn't earlier data have been transferred to a CDR? It would have probably been the most compact and easy-to-generate storage medium of that era. At this point, I am not aware that the contents of any year other than 1995 has been called into question, but I haven't checked.  But that is not much reassurance:  Clearly, the 1995 omissions didn't alert anyone else on the CP list, although I know virtually nothing about the mechanics of the archiving process. I identified the problem simply because I knew what to look for, and yet never saw it.   I say again that Cypherpunks from the 1995 must be alerted, because this is clearly a 'war' against the CP list, and it is a big mystery what they were trying to cover up.  And if 'they' are trying to cover it up, _I_ want to expose it even more !!! To quote the 1980 TV version of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy,  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxEqIt-NUSY    [two nuclear missiles had just been fired at the Heart of Gold spaceship as it orbited fabled planet Magrathea, which is 'on vacation' until the Galactic Stock Market value has returned high enough to allow rich people to buy custom-made planets, again.] Zaphod Beeblebrox:        "Hey this is terrific!  They are trying to kill us!  You know what that means?"Earth-man Arthur Dent     "Yes, we're going to die."Zaphod:                            "Yeah!  uh, no, no, maybe.   Look, it means there's something down there they don't want us to have.  And if                                           they don't want us to have it that badly, I want to have it even worse!"

(one of the very few advantages of being old is that you have seen more things...if you still have a memory good enough to remember them.  And I've found that if you can remember a piece of video, you can probably find it on YouTube.  One of the wonders of the modern world.  Has anybody here ever FAILED to eventually find a piece of video they wanted to see?)

I do not know the provenance of the copies above. I can tell you that I didn't edit/redact them (a README tells what I did to eventually ingest alongside lists.cpunks.org archives). 

I don't think we have to do anything close to a full re-generation of the proper state of the 1995 archive, in order to determine what was omitted.  A chronological-order set of any emails  (just stuck together by text) that would have been deleted would be plenty.   It would also be useful to be able to track the identities of the  'new' posters coming in to the list, and 'old' posters leaving. (Both in 1995 AND in 2019!)   Whatever they want to conceal, it presumably occurred sometime in 1995, and not later. Also, keep in mind that tampering with this computer-data was a Federal felony.  https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-ccips/legacy/2015/01/14...    If this is publicized sufficiently, we hope prosecutors will have no choice but to go after their own.     Some things ought to be checked (Wayback?).   I hope everyone agrees that at least figuring out what happened, and when it happened, will be extremely beneficial.    Most people will want the archive corrected, a very worthy goal in itself.  I hope archivist Tom Busby will be sufficiently offended by this attack on the archive that he will be motivated to help in the process.

I agree with Jim's suggestion that we seek other copies of archives, or individuals who might have a complete personal archive from them. Some of the long-departed CDR admins like Jim Chote and John Gilmore might have such records. If anyone knows who was running CDRs in the 1992-1997 period, I will be happy to reach out to them.

Writable CD's presumably held 640 megabytes.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_disc   Wouldn't that be much more than a year's output of CP?  

Best, Greg Excellent!

On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 12:49:22AM +0000, jim bell wrote:

  On Sunday, November 3, 2019, 01:34:48 PM PST, Zenaan Harkness wrote:       >What I do when I'm unsure and want to check, is check the cp archives here:

...

    The cypherpunks Archives

...

view by date, and look at the most recent emails.

Unfortunately, your response is (un-?)intentionally hilarious.  It wouldn't have been so a week ago, before I started exposing the most huge scandal of corruption tampering that Cypherpunks archives has ever seen, a massive fabrication of some of the CP archives,  Back then, there was at least the illusion that the CP archives had a minimal level of credibility.   And here, above, you ask me to "check the CP archives". Worse, you don't even bother to explain if you actually received the first attempt of my morning email, a claim which at least in principle would have provided a bit of further indication whether my first attempt had actually succeeded, or had failed.   That is obviously the first, most immediate piece of information that you could have done.    And you didn't.  Remember what 'they' say, "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem".             Jim Bell

 

| | | | The cypherpunks Archives | | | | | | | Index of /cypherpunks | | | | | | | cypherpunks Info Page | | |

I confirm that I received no earlier version of the below email. Now Jim, a simple request is all that's needed for most folks who would ordinarily, go out of their way to spend a little of their own time, to verify something for you, at your request. Anyway, I have posted a few examples of when I have experienced my own emails, sent to this list, completely disappearing "into a black hole", one very recently in fact. So this is a known problem. One possible explanation is spam filtering, especially for an example ISP as I use such as Telstra which is the incumbent, thus large and must handle millions of emails on a daily basis - it is at least conceivable that they somewhat aggressively filter for "spam" emails, and in doing so unfortunately black hole a few of the emails I draft ... not surprising given how many times I use the word "snowflake" in my emails. Good luck, On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 07:53:27PM +0000, jim bell wrote:

I'm going to re-send this, because after over a hour it doesn't seem to have appeared on the list.           Jim Bell ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: jim bell To: Steven Schear Cc: cypherpunks ; Razer Sent: Sunday, November 3, 2019, 10:30:21 AM PSTSubject: Re: Whom, specifically, is our greatest ally? - (spoiler: Australia) - [PEACE] On Sunday, November 3, 2019, 01:52:45 AM PDT, Steven Schear wrote:

...

...

"I think that in America, gun laws cannot Constitutionally be any stricter that they were in 1789, when the Bill of Rights of voted, and 1791, when it was ratified by states." Of course they are more strict.

I will try to be clearer.  In virtually any environment, there is "the way things are supposed to be" and there is "the way things actually are".  One major source of this discrepancy, in the American gun-rights situation, is that until 2010, in the Supreme Court decision McDonald v. Chicago   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago   the Bill of Rights had continued to be only selectively enforced on the States themmselves.   There was a very long period of the practice called "incorporation"  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights    So, for essentially over 200 years, states didn't necessarily feel bound by the wording of the Second Amendment.   I never thought that this "incorporation" concept made any sense.  It effectively amount to "exclusion" of the principles of the BOR to the States, despite the fact the requisite 3/4s of the then-existing states had ratified the relevant Amendment.  What, exactly, did their "ratifications" actually mean, if not to comply with the wording of the Amendments they had just ratified.   If those Amendments could be interpreted to apply to those States, of course. It's further illogically applied:  Notice that the 1st Amendment begins, "Congress shall make no law...".  Apparently, the Federal Congress, that is.  Not the State legislatures, it seems.   So,if any Amendment is written so as to seem to apply only to the Federal Government, it must be the First!   Yet, there has long been essentially no dispute that the 1st Amendment ALSO applies to the States themselves.   That is certainly a good idea, but I dare you to try to find out the actual, Constitutional justification for deciding that's the way things have to be done.   And when the Second Amendment declares that it "shall not be infringed", there is no indication at all that the ratifying States immediately intended to exclude themselves from this obligation,   Where did that idea come from?

 >When these Amendments were written each state had militias controlled by their governors,

I don't think that's precisely true.  Saying that "each state had militias" can be interpeted in at least two ways:1.   There are militias acting within the territory of each state.       OR2.   [The Government] of each state owns or controls [some of?] the militias acting within each respective state. These are distinctly different concepts.  I think State Constitutions generally give such Governors power "to call out the militia".   But the way law works, that does not automatically mean that those militias become obliged to obey that call.  I realize that might seem to be a fine distinction, especially to a non-lawyer, but the way American Constitutions are interpreted, the absence of a explicit reference to an power has (at least used to be!) interpereted as the ABSENCE of that power.   When States wrote their Constitutions, they (I think correctly) recognized that if "the Government" was to EVER have the authority to "call out" a militia, that power had to be listed in the Constitution itself.  And it was.  "and these rights were linked to militia membership." That reasoning is excluded by the 2008 Heller and the 2010 McDonald decisions.  Sure, that was long the position of "the powers that be", and the chattering leftist political classes especially, but the Heller decision destroyed that concept forever.    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/#tab-opinion-1962738 

...

From the Heller decision:    "Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause (“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).[Footnote 3] “ ‘It is nothing unusual in acts … for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’ ” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)). Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose.[Footnote 4]"     ===========end of Heller quote======================

...

This which dramatically changed in 1903, when Congress became Dicks.

Some would argue that Congress was ALWAYS Dicks.   And I couldn't disagree,

...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

...

Since then the restrictions have only gotten tighter. Today, there are effectively no militias.

Returning to the "the way things are SUPPOSED to be" vs.  "the way things are actually done" issue, I have explained that:  "Incorporation" wasn't applied to the 2nd Amendment until 2010, and maybe not even today!   I argue that in 2010, State legislatures became all obligated to "clean house" of newly-discovered-to-be-unconstitutional laws, due to the McDonald decision.  But to my knowledge, none of them ever did so.   Implicitly, this means that they are thumbing their Legislative noses at the Supreme Court.  As if they are saying, "Just try to make me!... Nyah! Nyah!! Nyah!!!".   But that doesn't mean that my interpretation is wrong, nor Heller's, nor McDonald's.  Just that those interpretations aren't currently RESPECTED by legislatures, as reflected in their state laws.  So while you can certainly point out hundreds or even thousands of current State laws, their existence doesn't mean that they don't violate the current interpretation of the U.S. Constitution by the U.S. Supreme Court.

...

https://mises.org/wire/when-state-governors-tried-take-back-control-national...

...

I interpret this change to mean these rights originally conferred to the states now Constitutionally belong to the nation's individuals.

Well, since the late 1800's, there has been the foundation of the 'National Guard' organization(s) in presumably each state.  But it is merely an implication to suggest things like, 'now we don't need militias', or worse, 'we can now ban militias, since the National Guard substitutes for it."  Or even worse, 'since we no longer have militias, none of the 2nd Amendment rights are valid anymore.'    (I'm not suggesting you said these things, merely that such implicit arguments have frequently been cited by (mostly liberal?) debaters, and much of the clueless populace, lacking any sort of legal education, accepts them without apparent question.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zruWCuNmWV8 "You come in here with a skull full of mush, and you leave thinking like a lawyer",    The Paper Chase, 1973.   When I originally saw this movie, in the theater, I had no idea how accurate this statement was.  And of course, I also had no idea that I would eventually be giving myself much of a lawyer's legal education 30 years later, and then understanding what "Professor Kingsfield" meant. Yes, there IS something which could be called "thinking like a lawyer".  Figuring out the precise meaning of words, sentences, and paragraphs.  But as importantly, the ability to understand (and reject) tantalizingly attractive implications that might actually not be a proper way of thinking of some issue.  Just because a Governor may have the authority to 'call out the militia', does not necessarily mean that the militia is obliged to obey him.   Yes, that's a hard concept to grasp.  From the Wikipedia article:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia  

"Militias thus can be military or paramilitary, depending on the instance. Some of the contexts in which the term "militia" is used include:

- Forces engaged in defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws. [3]

- The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms. - A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up. - A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.

[end of quote from Wikipedia] Now, a state might hypothetically have a LAW requiring a militia member to respond to a call.   But that law would not necessarily be Constitutional, and that law might be interpreted by a court that it violates the 2nd Amendment.  Such laws, of course, have been rarely, if ever, actually challenged and decided on.  (There is virtually never a NEED to:  If there is a genuine emergency, no doubt that most militia people would respond, and the few who fail to respond would be ignored). The Founding Fathers, being a product of the then-recent American Revolution, deeply distrusted centralized government power.   Their view of "a militia", I believe, was that of armed force of neighbors who were entitled (virtually by natural rights) to band together to defend their community.  NOT a group of people who only got that power to group from government, with the idea that this could be taken away at a moment's notice, and who were somehow obliged to act only under their State's beck and call, and could be demanded to show up on cue. I think the (certainly the current!) Supreme Court would decide that no, while the Governor had the (positive) authority to 'call out the militia', nevertheless that militia had no obligation at all to obey that call, if that was their choice.   And they might even show up intending to shoot the Governor ! These are the kind of distinctions that few non-lawyers comprehend.             Jim Bell

On Sun, Nov 3, 2019, 5:13 AM jim bell wrote:

On Saturday, November 2, 2019, 08:11:34 PM PDT, Razer wrote:

On November 2, 2019 5:28:58 AM PDT, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

...

...

For those who missed the memo, in Australia, "cunt" is the most endearing term used between two blokes who are great friends and have been for a long time.

Between absolutely anyone else at all, the word is one of, if not

...

the, worst possible slurs.

...

When in polite company, it is strongly advisable to not use the term at all, even when your best long term friend rocks up, since others may not take so kindly to such colloquial speach in such situations.

...

Aussie Thomas Violence says:

...

"I love little cultural differences, like how Americans are super offended by the word cunt but here in Australia we're super offended by school children being slaughtered with automatic weapons" Sure he said that!  The current difference between America and Australia is that the latter generally banned guns a few years ago, and mostly America hasn't done that.  It's called the "Second Amendment", and my interpretation fairly closely agrees with the 2008 Supreme Court case D.C. v. Heller.  I think that in America, gun laws cannot Constitutionally be any stricter that they were in 1789, when the Bill of Rights of voted, and 1791, when it was ratified by states.  That's the meaning of the term "infringed", with its root-word "fringe".   I assert that this means that the RTKBA cannot be further limited, even around the "fringed".  Why this wording?  Well, if the wording had says, "the right to keep and bear a gun shall not be denied", some slick politician some day would decide that if 'they' banned any gun with more power than 1/4 of a 0.22 pistol, they still hadn't actually DENIED people's rights to own a gun, used singular.   Slick. I can remember about 1966, when "Texas Tower Shooter" Charles Whitman shot people.   It shocked the nation, not merely due to the violence, but because at that time it seemed to be such an astonishing act.   "What has changed", we should ask?  America doesn't have that many more people (and guns) than we did in 1966.  

...

Later, on twitter: "heaps of replies i'd like to get to here but i have to turn off the notifications, i'm too busy denying christ, implementing white genocide, making christmas illegal, kneeling during the anthem, and reading up on the automatic gun known as the Assault Rifle 15" Would we know if that email barrage was actually just a 'false-flag' flood by people simulating some other group of people harassing somebody?   "Fake hate crimes" are extremely common, primarily because they are easy to simulate, and if the person doing that is halfway intelligent, he or she probably won't get caught.   ("Hide the noose in your pocket, walk to the door, look around to make sure nobody is looking and there are no security cameras, and then drop the noose!  Try not to leave any DNA!")

thomas violence on Twitter

Rr Sent from my Androgyne dee-vice with K-9 Mail

On November 3, 2019 1:52:31 AM PDT, Steven Schear opined:

Since then the restrictions have only gotten tighter. Today, there are effectively no militias.

The REPUBLIC of California's National Guard is a militia... Some states DO NOT relegate full control of their National Guard to the pentagram. They are technically state militias. California actually refers to them as such. The state also has a naval militia. https://en.wikipedia.org Ps. Take your metal peckers, ram them up your collective asses, and PULL! -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.