From: "L. Detweiler" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 93 20:31:58 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: The `Reputation' of Cypherpunks
Message-ID: <9311180431.AA26799@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I've been thinking about this concept of `reputation'. It seems that
the Cypherpunks seem to treat it differently than many other people.

Many cypherpunks have the argument, `I assign no reputation to messages
whose owner I have never met, or have no trust for.' But it is
impossible not to be influenced by any message. When you read a
message, it is influencing you. The only message that has `no
reputation' is no message at all.

Also, this preoccupation seems to violate one of the Cypherpunk dogmas,
`there is only a message'. Isn't that kind of a bizarre statement? What
if Ted Bundy, Hitler, and a Psychopunk posted 99 messages to the
Cypherpunks list, and Jesus Christ posted one. Furthermore, suppose no
one knew who posted what, in a pseudospoofing scenario. Who would want
to subscribe to this? Apparently, it would be Utopia for some Cypherpunks.

Another thing about Cypherpunks is that they think that reputation is
something you can `cash in' when you need to. For example, in that
rather amazing message by Mr. Szabo recently, he seemed to be
completely cashing in all his reputation chips just for a cheap thrill.
Doesn't that damage everything he has *ever* said, if he suddenly says,
`I admit it! I'm a tentacle! I lied in RISKS!'. I don't understand this
idea of building up trust just to betray someone. Maybe some
cypherpunks can explain this in detail to me.

I remember flaming D.Denning rather searingly over the issue of truth
(over her involvement with Clipper) a long time ago, and maybe someone
else along my long visit to this little dark corner of cyberspace. Mr.
T.C.May was upset by my messages. He said that it was generally not a
good idea to `demonize' one's opponents, because it `rarely served a
useful purpose.' I have been thinking about these words a lot lately. I
wonder -- is it okay to `demonize' someone with Tentacles? Maybe that
is the preferred method. I guess that would explain a lot!

One final question I have. If I get an anonymous phone call to my
answering machine, how does that relate to reputation? should I give
this phone call ``Lance, stop posting to cypherpunks'' (as I did today
at about 730 or so) any merit? Should I give it more or less than
anonymous mail? threats from tentacles in my mailbox? to my postmaster?
I'm quite confused. Also, suppose this person had reached me
personally, e.g. I picked up the phone. Should I have given that
conversation more merit, because some two-way dialog took place? What
if the caller still remained anonymous? What if he called me `Linda' instead?

The call reminded me of an interesting comment by J. Dinkelacker --
`he's a borg'. I was watching Robocop at the time I got the call, and
it was kind of funny in that context.

If Medusa would like to explain to me precisely why she prefers that I
not post to Cypherpunks, and how this does not detract from the forum
but enhances it, can someone have her call or email me? All I have been
getting are tentacle-grams for many weeks now. It's quite frustrating.