From: Alan Olsen <alano@teleport.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 18:26:01 +0800
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: [noise] Re: Charter of PDX Cpunk meetings
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960202100334.009241ec@mail.teleport.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

I think an explanation for this is due.  Jim is going to move his complaints 
here instead of dealing with them with me no matter what I do...

A bit of history here...

I had seem Jim Bell's postings and had not thought too much about them one 
way or another.  I felt that some people had been a bit too hard on him, but 
did not care one way or another.

I organized a physical meeting on Jan 20th at a public coffee house in 
portland.  Jim showed up.  During this meeting he espoused some ideas which 
I found very bothersome because they sounded far too much like "magical 
thinking" and pseudo science.  I did not challenge him about them at the 
meeting and tried to move on  to other things.

A while ago an anonymous poster made a number of comments about Jim Bell's 
beliefs involving assassination politics.  He brought up a number of valid 
points.  Jim ignored all of those points and flamed him on something totally 
without substance.  (Not signing messages and not using an identifiable 
nym.)

This bothered me. I responded to the post.  A good portion of this message 
was flame, but it contained a number of questions about the workability of 
Jim's pet theories.

Jim's response to this was to question the validity of the post, but not 
deal with any of the substance of the arguments.  (He was questioning it 
because I did not sign the posting.)  I ignored the post as I had other 
things occupying my time...

During the period of time between the meeting and the offending post I had 
created a pdx-cypherpunks list.  I had a number of people who were 
interested and it seemed like a good idea at the time...

Well, i posted on the list a question about the next meeting and mentioned 
about  the results from the key signing.  (I had three people, who i did not 
mention by name, who had not signed keys or gotten back to me on it.)  I 
relieved a response from Jim about my messages to him here and why he had 
not signed anyone's keys.  [For those who are interested, I can forward the 
original messages.  They are interesting reading, in an odd sort of way...] 
 It came down to him complaining about my messages on national list.  He 
still did not address any of the issues I had raised (he still has not), but 
was pretty pissed.

A number of the other people on the list took him to task on a number of the 
comments he made.  It grew into a pretty hot flame war on the list.  After I 
started to get complaints and it prevented anything useful being posted, I 
posted a message to take the discussion to e-mail or I would start banning 
people from the list.  Jim ignored that request and I removed him from the 
list.

That is why it has moved back here.

This will be my last response to Jim's rantings in public.  i will be glad 
to deal with questions in e-mail.  I have sent a number of responses to Jim 
already in e-mail and he has ignored them.  He has made veiled threats to me 
on the pdx list and has shown no sign of wanting to deal with this in a 
rational manner.

The issue comes down to this.  Jim Bell has a number of ideas i disagree 
with.  I have challenged him on some of those ideas.  He is unwilling to 
answer any questions as to the flaws in his beliefs.  Instead, he takes any 
questioning of his ideas as personal attacks.  I refuse to give any respect 
to an individual who presents his ideas to the world and yet is unwilling to 
defend them in public (or in private).

I suggest you get your killfiles ready.  I will be killfileing Mr. Bell's 
comments on this list as it does not belong here.

The following is the last I will say publically on the matter.

At 12:16 AM 2/2/96 -0800, jim bell wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>At 10:52 PM 2/1/96 -0800, Alan Olsen wrote:
>
>>
>>I requested that this debate be taken to private e-mail.  Since you seem 
to 
>>not want to do that, and since you insist of making false and unrealistic 
>>claims, 
>
>Which "false and unrealistic claims"?

Well, lets see...  The claim that you have a method of "rendering a building 
uninhabitable by electronic equipment for at least 30 days".  The claims 
that the Portland meeting was a "private meeting".  That I did not inform 
people of that fact.  That I somehow owe you an apology for statements which 
you seem to be unwilling to deal with.  I am sure that i can dig up more.


>I am removing your name from the subscription list for 
>>pdx-cypherpunks.
>
>This isn't a DEBATE.  

That is because you are not willing to debate.  You want your beliefs 
accepted with no proof and no rational thought.  You want them to be 
accepted without question.

>It is a WARNING to all other potential suckers in the 
>Portland Oregon area that Alan Olsen engaged in highly unethical behavior 
>with regards to the recent cypherpunks meeting, 

What behavior was that Jim?  I told people about your loonie scheme to 
"disable hardware"?  If you did not want it known, then you should have kept 
your mouth shut!  (The first rule of not being seen is DON'T STAND UP!)  You 
seemed to have some sort of idea that it was a private meeting.  Nowhere was 
it stated that it was private.  We were in a crowded coffee house.  You were 
sitting in front of a big glass window.  Anyone who wanted to take the time 
to hear you could have.

There was no reasonable expectation of privacy at that meeting.

I am sorry that you have suffered embarrassment.  Grow up.

>flamed me without 
>justification in the national list,

I gave my justification.  You are unwilling to respond to criticism of your 
ideas.  You still are.  Sorry, but you need to grow an epidermal layer.

> failed to respond to security inquiries,

I did not sign my messages to him.  He assumed that it must be some sort of 
spoof.  I left it unanswered for two reasons.  At the time i was not really 
needing a confrontation (as my personal life was taking time) and I was not 
certain how to answer.  (How do you answer someone who is THAT paranoid?)  I 
wonder if he assumes Tim May's messages are all spoofs.  (He may have 
something there...)
 
>failed to deny issues and matters of truth, 

Did not answer mail...

>and failed to properly deal with 
>a situation that he had a responsibility to handle ethically.  Not to 
>mention lying in the comment above.

Jim is not willing to deal with the issues i keep bringing up so i must be 
lying...


>I am going to take this to the national list, because you took it there 
>first in your original flame:  

And I banned Jim from the Portland list...

>I am going to point out that you flamed me 
>for no good reason; you engaged in a "knee-jerk" "debunking" without even 
>knowing what you were ostensibly "debunking,"  

I was flaming you for being unwilling to clarify your positions.  You made 
extraordinary claims and have been unwilling to explain how any of this is 
supposed to work or given anyone any sort of reason as to why we should 
believe you.

>that you failed to respond to 
>my polite request for clarification;

Yeah, that one is my fault.  i should have responded sooner to that message. 
 

> that you've attempted to pretend that I 
>was somehow at fault for noticing your transgressions; 

No.  You were at fault for ignoring every issue that was brought up.  You 
have been unwilling to deal with anything resembling substance and instead 
insist on continuing this petty flame war.

>that your local 
>clique is pre-programmed to defend you in the face of your transgressions.

i.e. the rest of the Portland list jumped on his case for his behavior.  
Many of them are my friends.  At least one of them is someone i have only 
met once.  You seem unwilling to accept that maybe the idea that no one has 
sided with you is that they do not agree with you.
  
>I notice that some of them don't even know what a key-signing meeting is 
>FOR:  I've received commentary which suggests that they believe that 
>key-signing somehow vouches for the HONESTY of the person involved; not his 
>IDENTITY.

As I have stated before, the concept of identity is a slippery thing.  
Actually the information on the key signing that I posted, and the theories 
behind it, were from the FAQ written by Derek Atkins.

>Until you start responding substantively to legitimate complaints, that is 
>all you deserve.  The public needs to be warned about people like you.

You have one legitimate complaint.  (That I did not respond to mail in a 
timely fashion.)  Sorry...  Guilty.

The rest you have blown FAR out of proportion.

You are mad because i said some unpleasant things to you on a list where you 
so much want to be respected.  I suspect that you had lost the respect of 
most of them before I posted.  If they are that easily swayed, then you have 
not done alot to earn their respect and be able to keep it.

You have failed to respond to the mail I have sent in private.  That makes 
me suspect that you do not want to resolve the issue with me, but cause 
problems for me with others as "punishment" for exposing your outlandish 
views.  I am sorry that you feel that you have to go to such extremes.  It 
reinforces my decision to bounce you from the Portland list however.

The more you rant, the less I am willing to deal with you.  When my daughter 
acts like you she is sent to her room.  In your case, I will just have to 
ignore you...

Find an anagram for "Spiro Agnew".




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBMRHgrOQCP3v30CeZAQGHFQf8CVDZAKzBv3vHy4aY9hiV2ydNJ+Dz1DX8
wQiA0Hg1eK5WuCJ4y6lIrZpSOR6h9ok86eGAdyaWqayscgcvDWVyTF1D/VJ3RPyM
vhbXLWF01DeG0eU+9ckqjoB4dJSYVYcdLRD18QzO/MDAmaOJaTehfxOT2BlNHHHi
WoHpH1SYq0JOHsN+5UoITA7GUR1JNNlTDhHBtcM17Wqm5WXnhwm+z1gpBPExIcZ6
VFMOsPBGqHj02lYZtUVUwFzmVXRlF9zbN7SzqyhnPdK0TkmH/V7jtk2A91C62DAw
6ZCE8KNQbXOMlyKS0RyhtUCXfPZpBTs77leP/9tKs1vyortPxO07GA==
=RoA4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Alan Olsen -- alano@teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction
        `finger -l alano@teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key 
                http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ 
         Is the operating system half NT or half full?