On Sat, Mar 07, 2015 at 01:10:32PM -0700, Mirimir wrote:
On 03/07/2015 11:28 AM, Libertas wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 07, 2015 at 09:40:59PM +0800, Virgil Griffith wrote:
>>> If a list stops fulfilling these criteria, people like us unsubscribe,
>>> leaving the list to its inevitable decline,
>>> destined to join the ever-lengthening roll of moribund, flame-filled
>>> lists that no longer exist or have ceased > to serve any useful
>>> the net.
>> I personally support more aggressive blocking of mad tinhatters.
> Seconded. Allowing people to question the project is important, but the
> loonyism that we've had recently distracts people and drowns out
> legitimate discussion.
OK, but who defines "legitimate"? A decade ago, much of what Snowden has
revealed was only brought up by "mad tinhatters".
It's fine to block doxxers, spammers, and so on.
Yeah, I was struggling with that too. At the risk of being
disrespectful, I think that "legitimate" can probably be defined as
"containing some technical understanding and rigor, and not apparently a
product of paranoid schizophrenia or a related disorder". I'm not sure
that we should block anything, but this dilemma is worth discussing
because it's a chronic problem on most popular security-related mailing
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to