From: "L. Detweiler" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 93 02:07:57 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: `the Dinkelacker matter'
Message-ID: <9311061004.AA08136@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Many people appear to have me confused with `S.Boxx'. I assure you, we
are two unique identities. Anyway, this all appears to have resulted
partly from H.Finney's posting a while back asking for help in
relieving me of my `mental anguish' and `mental suffering' as a
`personal favor' to bring me `piece of mind.'

>Larry believes that people have been communicating with him in private
>mail under multiple identities in order to confuse and mislead him.
>Specifically, he has suggested that Jamie Dinkelacker is a pseudonym
>employed by Tim May.  I gather that he has received email from both
>names.  He also suggests that others have employed these practices.

I'm not really sure where Mr. Finney got this impression -- perhaps
from private mail we traded. I definitely had some doubts about the
`Dinkelacker matter', partly in consideration of the (admittedly
bizarre) `S.Boxx' postings, as I stated publicly in response to his
post. But I (L. Detweiler!) haven't ever publicly accused Mr.
Dinkelacker of being anyone other than Mr. Dinkelacker, that I remember!

Anyway, an eminent cypherpunk was kind enough to clear up this
misunderstanding to me in email. I asked him to post to the list or to
sci.crypt, but to my knowledge it has not made it to either place so
far. Since this is an important matter and may have caused some other
cypherpunks some confusion, here is the *unequivocal* assurance that
Dinkelacker exists independent of T.C.May, and that the latter has
never posted under the identity of the former! (esp. given the eminent
reputation of this kind soul who has reassured me.)

I really appreciate this effort to help me in my own doubts, but also
let me assure everyone that (contrary to the person's suggestions) I am
not `clinging to a paranoid fantasy, adding layers of elaboration, and
as more evidence comes forward just adding layers upon layers,' `afraid
of the truth', `afraid to face the possibility you are wrong'

As far as all this pseudospoofing, it is something I would rather not
worry about, and I'm very hopeful that J. Helsingius will start a new
list where it is at least discouraged. I would like to see a new taboo
against it arise with the strength of those currently against network
censorship. In some quarters of the internet, the taboo against
pseudospoofing is actually there. Unfortunately, quite the opposite is
the case here, and it has indeed caused me some unpleasant and
unsettling doubts I would not even wish on my enemies. A new list would
certainly solve a lot of problems!

>I have to say that it's sad
>to see you screwing yourself up like this.  I hope you can get straight.

I really appreciate this person's concern and compassion, but even if
Mr. Dinkelacker was a snake of Medusa or a tentacle of a monster, I
certainly would not waste much time in `screwing myself up' over it. As
for my `reluctance to call Mr. May or Mr. Dinkelacker yourself' is not
due less to blind obstinacy than blase disinterist! (Although I'm not
sure how this person knew I hadn't called either -- but that's just my
paranoia speaking! <g>) Actually, Mr. May sent me mail stating that the
assertion that he had ever posted under J. Dinkelacker,
jamie@netcom.com, was `too bizarre to be believed', and I believe him.
I wasn't quite sure what he meant about his actual pseudospoofing
experience, though, and that's not really my business to comment on (I
asked him to post an unequivocal statement to the list, beyond his
initial satire, given the importance of the matter, which I have apparently missed).

(following slightly edited to preserve anonymity)

===cut=here===

Date: Tue, 26 Oct 93 09:49:42 PDT
From: [...]
To: ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu
Subject: Dinkelacker

Lance - For what it's worth, I called Jamie Dinkelacker on the phone yesterday.
He seemed to be a real person.  I had met Tim May a year or two ago (and
BTW, Tim looks just like his picture in Wired), and Dinkelacker 's  voice
seemed different from Tim's.  Tim had a deep voice (he's a big guy) while
Dinkelacker's was higher pitched.

We talked for about twenty minutes, and I was convinced that he was who he
claimed.  He is the former VP of Marketing for AMix, the American Information
Exchange, a spin-off from Autodesk (the CAD company) which I think went
out of business last year (maybe they're still around).  You might be able
to find some articles about AMiX from last year or the year before and they
might mention him.

Dinkelacker is active in nanotechnology circles there in the Bay area.  That
is how he met Tim.  He has never been to a CP meeting.  He mentioned a
couple of people who knew them both: Nick Szabo, who confirmed this to me
in email, and also Max More, whom I know personally.  Max is a grad student
at USC, where my [...] goes to school.  He is the founder of thee Extropian
movement, and publishes a twice-yearly journal called Extropy.  Max is a
really nice guy, soft-spoken and friendly.  He is originally from Ireland.
If you'd like his phone number, let me know.

This is about all I can offer you in terms of evidence for Dinkelacker's
independent existence.  It's up to you now.  You can cling to this paranoid
fantasy, adding layers of elaboration, saying that I must be a false identity,
Nick must be, this Max More must be (but then, who publishes Extropy?  You
can get back issues going back three years!), and as more evidence comes
forward you just add layers upon layers.

Or you can say to yourself, do I really have any basis for believing that
people are trying to mislead me in this way?  Who is my best candidate for
being a fake persona?  Let's investigate that one in detail.  Let's face
the truth.

If you're afraid of the truth, you're never going to find your way out of
fantasy.  Your reluctance to call Tim May and Jamie Dinkelacker directly
suggests to me that you don't really want to face the possibility that you
are wrong.  That's your decision to make, but I have to say that it's sad
to see you screwing yourself up like this.  I hope you can get straight.