From: "L. Detweiler" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 93 23:05:32 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Soothing Sayings
In-Reply-To: <9311131656.AA10352@illuminati.IO.COM>
Message-ID: <9311140705.AA05139@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Mr. Barnes, obviously deeply upset, emotionally objects to my simple
questions, but not ever directly, but implicitly buried and obscured in
the most spectacular set of ad hominem attacks I have ever been
privileged to find in my mailbox, outside of His Royal Eminence.

Mr. Barnes, I would be interested in your own responses to that set of
questions, or your reasons for why you should not have to answer them.
Do you think they represent a `witchhunt'? perhaps an `inquisition'?
Would you like me to show you my own responses, to help you figure out
how to understand them? are they too complicated for you? are they an
invasion of your privacy? would you be embarassed by the answers? would
you have to lie to evade incrimination? do you wish to deceive others
of your pseudospoofing?

>I used to
>think you were kind of funny. This stopped about the time you (quite
>seriously, and in some detail) compared me to Darth Vader... I convinced
>you I wasn't the "Hydra", so I was just a seducing minion.

Mr. Barnes, you tried to convince me of the Joy of Pseudospoofing, for
which I suggested you were trying to convert me to the  Dark Side
(actually, I am indebtedly grateful for that beautiful inspiration for
my essay). You told me that E.Hughes' lectures on the subject of
pseudospoofing were what drew you to it in the first place! But this is
buried very deep in my comprehensive archives, from many weeks ago. (I
encourage all other cypherpunks to keep very good archives, because
some day we will be able to separate all the pseudospoofed identities
from real ones, and it will be quite shocking, I assure you. Some
prominent cypherpunks are extremely terrified and staunchly opposed to
archives, for obvious reasons.)

>you have done more than anyone else to 
>disrupt this list and make it next to impossible for real work to get 
>done on it (including work that would help mitigate problems of the 
>kind you believe your "enemies" are perpetrating on you.) 

No one is interested in preventing pseudospoofing here, quite to the
contrary they are interested in secretly pursing it at the expense of
others, including their own associates in this group,it is the NUMBER
ONE PRIORITY, and I am quite repulsed by your baldfaced lie in the face
of reality and my oceans of fanatic hate mail (which yours is only the
latest on the pile). I asked many weeks ago that E.Hughes and T.C.May
condemn pseudospoofing. They had problems doing so, for obvious
reasons! I asked that they prohibit it from this list, or ask promises
to refrain from it. Again, an outrageous demand, apparently, based on
the response. I asked that they reveal their own practice! I have been
continually whittling down my demands, and have every time been
rebuffed. Honest cypherpunks, why is that? do you care if other people
are systematically deceiving you? When will you be free of the jaws of
this delusion? I am even offering to GO AWAY COMPLETELY if some SIMPLE
QUESTIONS are ANSWERED HONESTLY.

As for disruptions in the list, it is a fantasy that *I* have caused
any over its lifetime. It is the evasions and the stonewalling that
have caused all the *recent* commotion! it is the rampant
pseudospoofing that has poisoned `real work', and you make me your
scapegoat and martyr for its evils and your own depravity and perversions.

>You persist in baiting the less-restrained members of the list with your 
>antaigonistic, paranoid, policial/social rants, which have accomplished 
>nothing producive, except to sap the energy of people who would otherwise
>be writing code, engaging in PR for our cause, educating one another, and
>working towards a consensus or at least an honest delineation of where
>we disagree as mature individuals (rather than characterizing folks as evil 
>spawn of darkness).

Nothing but stark and utter lies. You blame the `movements'
shortcomings on myself, one person who has had the audacity to
challenge those who wish to promote their secret conspiracies of
pseudospoofing. PSEUDOSPOOFING IS THE ONLY ISSUE. I have done
everything productive to sap the energy of those writing code solely to
promote their pseudospoofing, engaging in false PR for the cause of
`Privacy for the Masses' or the `Cryptographic Revolution' when in fact
it is all nothing but deception and lies in favor of pseudospoofing,
and conspiring between one another--And I have been flamed into
oblivion by snakes and tentacles who urinate on Democracy and Consensus
and anything Egalitarian, so do not assault me with your hypocrisies
about `working towards a consensus' or `an honest delineation of where
we disagree as mature individuals', because there is nothing here but
PUERILE PSEUDOSPOOFING FANTASIES.

>Note that your postmaster, when I contacted him, made it clear that he
>had instructed you to stop doing whatever it was you were doing that
>was upsetting people so much.

I wonder how your postmaster would feel about pseudospoofing. Or are
you your own postmaster? Or does E.Hughes help maintain your site?
Those who mail my postmaster are nothing but vile and shameful cowards
with machine gun arsenals assaulting a man who has attempted to expose
frauds, poseurs, and hypocrites with nothing but his bare hands and the
Truth. You are such a slimy hypocrite, to have never have even used the
word `pseudospoofing' once in your little rant, only to say that I am
`upsetting people so much'.

>you
>have turned this thing into a nonsensical, paranoid, one-man jihad against 
>cypherpunks on a variety of *other* lists, while continuing your activities 
>on this one.

`jihad'? well, yes, I would call your pseudoreligion precisely that.
very curious how many lists they have invaded and infiltrated and
littered with their eloquent prose for Glorious Privacy, True
Anonymity, Liberating Cash, and No Oppresive Identification, yourself
included. Perhaps you would like to indicate what lists that other
cypherpunks are on, and what they have said there? (Reminds me of my
essay in RISKS -- have you seen that, by chance?) What is your own
knowledge on the the subject, hm? Can I ask without you going into
seizures or convulsions?

>I intend to go beyond your postmaster on the next try, to various former
>classmates and old friends of mine who are computation center employees,
>faculty, and administration members at CSU now.

Anyone I respect will not ask me to compromise my ethics.
Unfortunately, you do not meet this criteria.

>Unless, of course, you 
>cut this shit out and leave us alone, or at least go back on whatever 
>medication you were taking before you went from a mildly annoying over-
>eager wannabe to a full-fledged psychopath.

it is the pseudospoofing psychopunks who are the full-fledged
psychopaths. I will leave when the so-called `leadership' answers some
simple questions truthfully. Look, honest cypherpunks, OPEN YOUR EYES,
see to what extreme lengths that they have gone to, to deceive you of
their pseudospoofing, and EVADE AND STONEWALL. Reminds me of someone
talking about `betrayal, treachery, and high treason'!

You can have your secret conspiracies, xor your public credibility, for
the moment. some day, you will have neither. I suppose you could censor
me, too. Maybe E.Hughes could conduct a little poll, and state that the
majority decided to censor me. Oh, wait, you guys don't believe in
polls and voting and the majority. The Majority is Always Wrong. Well,
let's see, I guess Mr. Hughes could decide to unilaterally censor me.
But that wouldn't seem to be compatible with the cypherpunk charter. I
was looking at it recently!
(soda.berkeley.edu:/pub/cypherpunks/brainwashing). it said that
`cypherpunks do not seek to prevent others from speaking' or something like that. 

Maybe E.Hughes will change the charter and throw me out. You guys in
California could do that at your next monthly `conspiracy'. BTW, when
is it?  What do you do at those great meetings, anyway, Mr. Barnes? I
asked that someone provide minutes, so that everyone on the list may
share in the lovely `movement', but there was a lot of hostility to
that idea. Why could that be? 

Mr. Barnes, please let me know how the CA group decides to persecute me
further, beyond all the depravities I have been subject to so far.   I
do appreciate your indicating that you are going to attempt to
blackmail me through close associates, it's a fair warning. Clearly,
`they' are desperate. The facade is crumbling.

Imagine, all this fantastic hostility directed solely at me, for asking
some wholly innocuous questions. Cypherpunks, why is everyone so upset?
It makes me wonder if there is a core group hiding something or
covering something up. a `conspiracy'? (hee, hee, love that word).
Maybe I would have to move to CA to find out, eh?

Once again, I volunteer to leave if they are answered truthfully and
publicly revealed!