From: "L. Detweiler" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 94 18:26:27 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: A Message to my Enemies
Message-ID: <199401230221.TAA08692@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Hello, Enemies. You have succeeded in scaring my postmaster with your
ranting and raving about `harassment', `anonymous death threats', and
`libel' from anonymous posts. You have come very close to convincing
him that somewhere in ASCII text coming out of remailers and my own
address (supposedly there is some correspondence) lies illegal strings,
and that I am allowed to post as long as what I say is `true'.

I don't understand why the cypherpunks have suddenly become so
fascinated by these subjects, regarding the subversive uses of
remailers. When I brought them up long ago, about a year ago, when I
first joined the list, no one was interested. I talked about
restricting the abuse of remailers, so that the antisocial and
psychopathic uses could be minimized or even prevented. Obviously, in
designing a remailer, the subject of `what to pass through' is a rather
obvious consideration, that operators have mostly wholly neglected.

When are you going to codify your Cypherpunk Code of Ethics, and
explain what constitutes a death threat, a libelous message? Or is it
just that the rule is, if I type it it is a violent death threat, and
libelous harassment, but if anyone else writes it there is nothing
wrong? Will the rules be devised at the next Cypherpunk Meeting? Will
Mr. May or Mr. Hughes (list moderator) grace us with some eloquent
proclamation on the subject? Will Mr. Gilmore favor you with some
enlightened musings on the topics? When are you going to police your
remailers to keep that which you call `illegal' from passing through
them? You weren't interested in `ethics' when I proposed them many
times, but I am certainly delighted with your newfound piousness.

* * *

But I am not just handing you the standard L.D. rant about Cypherpunk
Hypocrisy above (even I am growing tired and bored of pointing out your
stellar and freakish hypocrisies out so often and so easily). 

I am writing to tell you some GOOD NEWS (for you): last week you
succeeded spectacularly in attempting to censor me at my current
account. My account is still hanging by a thread. Mr. Dempsey told me
he would allow me to keep it under the constraint that the `noise
stopped' from his mailbox. But this is obviously something I cannot
guarantee (I didn't really have any other choice at the time than to
say that I would do my best), and in fact you have the power to yell
some more and perhaps cast the `final stone' that kills me `here'.

But I tell you, tear down this Temple and in three days I shall raise
it up. Why are you so maniacally attempting to get me to lose my
favorite account? Do you think it will prevent me from posting? From
using your remailers? From continuing my crusade? Aren't you being just
a tad bit naive beyond your usual hypocrisy? Isn't that you *religion*,
that if someone wants to smuggle something in Cyberspace, there is no
stopping them? Would you like me to get a netcom account? or several?
or do I already have several? Would that make your day? Don't you think
that losing my account of 4 1/2 years would really kind of piss me off,
way beyond my current wrath? That things might get *really* ugly?

So, you have a choice. Continue to harass my postmaster, and perhaps
even succeed in censoring me from my native address, the very first
Death caused by Cypherpunk Hypocrisy, and *really* piss me off. Or,
leave Mr. Dempsey alone, and figure out more proactive ways of dealing
with whatever is troubling you. Ironically, I have suggested many
myself, over my lifetime on the list and recently. The choice is up to you.