From: an12070@anon.penet.fi (S.Boxx)
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 93 22:39:41 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: HFinney == TCMay
Message-ID: <9311290637.AA19379@anon.penet.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Some person an41925@anon.penet.fi has been sending me particularly
vicious and harrassing mail lately. It's a good thing that he did it
anonymously--I might be upset if a real person made the kind of
accusations that he did. He was upset by my tcmay == hfinney
implication I made in some earlier message. I was really fascinated by
this response:

>No one will prove that
>May is Finney because May is not Finney. I see no similarity in the
>style or content of their posts, they don't appear to support or
>butress each others arguments any more than any random pair of
>people on the list, I see nothing to indicate they are the same. I
>wish you would come up with some evidence if you continue to make
>these wild accusations.

Actually, I see some interesting similarities. May is interested in
digital pornography, and I just saw H.Finney post on the subject the
other day. (Actually, a whole lot of cryptoanarchists posted on the
subject, but that's another story). May is really upset by accusations
that he doesn't handhold newcomers like H.Finney does. Could it be that
the former is upset that people aren't recognizing his actual work
because of his pseudospoofing, attributing it to the latter? That would
be most ironic! Just another one of the pathetic freakshows that
cypherpunks are proud of. 

Also, H.Finney posts from soda.berkeley.edu, same site as E.Hughes and
the Cypherpunk archives. He is very clearly a Top Cypherpunk, given
many apologist statements on the subject. And given that Top
Cypherpunks have always been interested in `pseudopooling', or
surrreptiously and conspirationally posting from each other's accounts,
it is not unlikely IMHO that H.Finney is either a pseudopooler,
pseudospoofer, or a tentacle. H.Finney was also involved in the defense
of `known tentacles' like J.Dinkelacker.

Also, the point that this an41925@anon.penet.fi makes that H.Finney and
T.C.May are different people -- note that he gives absolutely no
verifiable real world evidence whatsoever. It makes me think he is just
another psychopunk who lives in his cyberspatial hallucinations. He
makes reference to `similarity in style or content of posts, no
appearance of supporting or butressing each other's arguments any more
than any random pair of people on the list.' But notice that these are
all things that a master pseudospoofer would endeavor to avoid! The
whole *point*of pseudospoofing is to deceive others in an undetected
way. Obviously, none of this proves that H.Finney == T.C.May. It only
says that this person's arguments are essentially completely empty of
solid evidential facts that prove anything conclusive. `I see nothing
to indicate they are the same' he whines. IMHO, `I see nothing to
indicate they are different.'

> I
>wish you would come up with some evidence if you continue to make
>these wild accusations.

This is another interesting psychopunk argument, placing the burden of
proof on someone who makes an accusation about nonexistence, when
obviously the burden of proof in cyberspace should be on those who wish
to prove they exist, because every aspect of the Internet encourages
the opposite conclusion -- that `they' are a tentacle. There are no
humans in cyberspace! Only email addresses! To equate the two is the
most dangerous deception imaginable! Are we to rely on human nature and
honesty? Remember, we are dealing with pathological liars and
psychopaths here. Unless the accused denies the claim, there is not
really any need for proof. We simply assume that everyone is a tentacle
until evidence arises to the contrary, and get a proof by
contradiction. Psychopunks prefer Proof by Lies.

>The point I'm trying to make is that you
>just look foolish, accusing people of pseudospoofing who do not
>appear to be doing so to neutral observers

That's the key -- fooling neutral observers into believing that no one
is pseudospoofing. This is the central weapon of the pseudospoofer.
Telling his opponents that they are insane paranoiacs for believing
that there is no guarantee whatseover that a unique nametag corresponds
to a unique person! Until people wake up and smell the excrement, the
pseudospoofer gets away with his treachery unhindered.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.