From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 93 16:40:45 PST
To: pmetzger@lehman.com
Subject: Re: The Courtesies of Cypherpunks
Message-ID: <9311152339.AA22460@lux.YP.acad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Before I start I wish to express that on many occasions 
Perry has earned my utmost respect,
and that the sarcasm I express here is not offered as flame bait, but
as an expressions of the ironic nature of this affair.
as such it migrates from *wry* comments on Perrys post into a more general
rant.

  > From: "Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger@lehman.com>
  > Look, everyone --

Is this a command, a request, a plea, or a futile gesture?

 > Detweiler is a seriously disturbed individual. 

In your opinion. 
No matter how common that opinion may be amongst other
participants, stating such as *fact*, only opens pandoras box
that much further.


 > Sending him mail saying
 > "what the hell are you doing -- you're nuts" isn't going to do any
 > good. 

Isn't going to what?
Good in whose opinion?

relative statements with open ended conjecture dangling unspecified
but none the less qualified negations of hypothetical scenarios
are doing some good?

 > Crazy people don't think they are crazy. Ignoring his rantings
 > works a whole lot better than any other strategy.

towards what end, assuming that all share the same goal?

 > I only mailbombed him because he was sending me unsolicited personal
 > mail and wouldn't stop. Otherwise I ignore him, and I advise others to
 > do the same.

Do you dump your nose-goblin collection into the neighbors mailbox
if their dog shits on your front stoop?
doing so would be a federal crime would it not?


Mailbombing is considered an anti-social act by everyone I know
whose ever been the recipient of one. Blaiming your actions on the other guy
is just a version of a *He started it* argument, something I find to be
more common to adolescents and mental inferiors. 
Not the kind of thing I usually see from bright
people like you Perry!

phade to more general rant...................................

I am finding this situation most enlightening myself.

It directly parallels the situation that I outlined regarding
the electronic version of Fag bashers in the queer newsgroups, and the 
subsequent e-terrorism that has been perpetrated against myself and other
admitted homo-sek-shuals who don't take any shit from homo-haters.

Larry has simply created a campaign against a different un-natural 
lifestyle choice, the perverted and obviously criminal desire 
to remain anonymous. (thats satire BTW)
 
Showing us how to harangue your target with the techniques of mindless
prejudged bigotry, and how they usually only engender more of the same.
(ala *my mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts)

It reminds me of some things I've seen all too often in other corners of the 
matrix;

the subsequent flame wars that ensue from the use of inflamatory terms,
(in this case the spoof word. Made more poignant due to the similarity to
the british slang word poof.)

the inevitable escalation of miscommunication that occurs between
people who are talking *at* each other rather than with each other,

the reality that electronic freedom still requires some forms of accountability,

the fantasy that anonymity makes you free,

the irony that those who expand their gripes against individuals as
foolish campaigns against whole groups of individuals, are engaged in 
destroying the very freedoms they claim to be defending.
(kinda like sawing off the limb your sitting on, to keep others from
sitting next to you!)

and that ultimately the only punishment available to an online personality
for transgression is exclusion.
(so far)

.................

To those who wrote to me a while back, telling me to get a thicker skin,
and learn to deal with it. I can now say,
just get over it.

To those who didn't understand the logistics of gaining concensus regarding
how to deal with such situations, I am eagerly awaiting your guidance
to show me how its done.


I think this issue points out the need to develop systems that foster
a better quality of communication in a medium that hampers quality at the
expense of ease-o-use.

I think that examining this situation as an example of a much wider
problem will illuminate some of the points I tried to make some months ago.
It is my opinion that the situation regarding the use of anonymous systems
to harrass and terrorise queers on the net is a laboratory for the study
of this issue. Ignore it at your peril IMNSHO.

And I think that if any group of people on the net is qualified and capable
of dealing inteligent solutions out, this is the group.

I think you gotta widen your focus and recognise the broad issues
before you narrow in on the specifics, I don't think that solutions 
to the issues involved can be integrated at the end of a patch-work
quilt of solutions that only get implemented after the fact.

In short Detweiler isn't the problem, he has merely provided you with 
some examples to chew on.
So go ahead, chase him away, perhaps the next case will not be one that
just involves simple neurosis, perhaps it will be full blown psychosis
and e-terrorists like we have experienced in the queerer corners of the 
matrix.
(as if this one isn't pretty odd ;-)


LUX ./. owen