1993-11-20 - Re: McCarthy, etc.

Header Data

From: an4609@anon.penet.fi (Dr. Manhattan)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 9878bcfd9a93e89edda251a2f054c344f57ab0ea9eb365fc7c80e57bb1a455a8
Message ID: <9311201833.AA07472@anon.penet.fi>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1993-11-20 18:34:50 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 20 Nov 93 10:34:50 PST

Raw message

From: an4609@anon.penet.fi (Dr. Manhattan)
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 93 10:34:50 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: McCarthy, etc.
Message-ID: <9311201833.AA07472@anon.penet.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

>[examples of McCarthy, Watergate, Kennedy]

>It seems to me that all are examples of how evasion, stonewalling, and
>counterattacks on Truth-seeking probes, by high-ranking officials
>seeking to promote unsavory or criminal personal `agendas' and their
>own respectability at all costs, led to monstrous consequences that
>demolished public trust in their most delicate and hallowed
>institutions for decades. Truly black consequences.

I fail to see your point in this: was there any pseudospoofing in the
above scenarios?  Anybody lie about their own identity?

Your argument is a non-sequitur.  For example, I could expound about
the crimes of Ivan the Terrible and then conclude pseudospoofing is
bad.  However, this doesn't make any sense.

Even so, just because somebody "pseudospoofs" doesn't mean they are
out to promote their own criminal agenda.  Your arguments are always
hypothetical: if somebody pseudospoofs then blah blah blah.  Why don't
you call for the ban of automobiles because innocent people are killed
in accidents?

To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.