From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 21:17:28 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: [noise] Re: Charter of PDX Cpunk meetings
Message-ID: <m0tjGYV-000938C@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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

At 07:18 AM 2/4/96 -0800, bernardo@alpha.c2.org wrote:
>jim bell wrote:
>
>>> 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...
>>
>> Alan Olsen is correct, here.
>
>This is childish and pointless.  Please shut up or take it to email.

Odd that you would say this, even more odd that you would post it to the 
Cypherpunks list.  The only reason I am posting this is that you appear to 
be taking a remarkably similar position to Alan Olsen.

>
>> But he (the anonymous poster):
>> 1.  FLamed me on this national list, similarly to the way Alan Olsen 
later did.
>
>FWIW, this is an _international_ list with a lot of people who are
>just not interested in your petty bickering.  If you want to argue
>about this, please do it in private.

Then why didn't you send me the email directly, and NOT copy the list.  
Somehow, it appears you have a double standard.  The only reason I'm 
responding to you now, ON CYPHERPUNKS, is that you appear to be 
hypocritically asking me to "keep it off the list" at the same time to 
failed to do the same yourself.  Sounds like a double-standard.  Your 
behavior is remarkably remeniscent of Alan Olsen himself.

>  If Alan posts responses to the
>list, that's his problem.  You don't _have_ to answer in public.

It's been pointed out to me that because Alan flamed me in public, 
anonymously, on Cypherpunks, I am entitled to have it known what he did.

>> 2.  Failed to be willing to sustain the debate in a more appropriate list, 
>> even under a stable nym.
>
>You have something against anonymity?  In this case, perhaps this list
>is not the best place to be.

I think you're deliberately pretending to misunderstand.  I have nothing 
against anonymity.  While a "newbie," I was under the impression that the 
term "stable nym" (my usage) refers to an anonymous alias that is 
untraceable.  In fact, it was _I_ who suggested that this anonymous flamer 
(now apparently self-admittedly identified as Alan Olsen himself) adopt a 
stable nym and debate me on some other area more appropriate for the 
subject.  While I do feel there is CP relevance to the digital cash/good 
encryption/network applications of "Assassination Politics," I didn't want 
to force this on what I would like to think of as a "not particularly 
political" list.

(Recent topics have battered the distinction, I realize.  I don't want to 
make it "worse," however.)

>> that I had been flamed by that anonymous poster.  The fact that he was
>> anonymous says it all.  The fact that he has not returned says it all.  The 
>
>The fact that he was anonymous says nothing whatsoever.  So what if
>you received some email agreeing that you'd been flamed?

The point is, some people seem to agree that what this anonymous flamer did 
was against "nettiquette," or at least against CP typical behavior.  Had he 
made his criticisms with a stable nym and been willing to sustain a serious 
debate (possibly on another area) that would have signalled that he was 
believeable and serious.  He was not, however.


>> the fact that I am relatively new here.  I have no intention of inflicting
>> an unwelcome discussion of "Assassination Politics" on the list, and 
>
>Actually, and Perry may disagree here, but I'd have no objection to a
>discussion of "Assassination Politics", or any other nutty political
>theories, as long as we can stick to reasonably mature discussion and
>not flames and petty ego boosting.

"..other nutty political theories"?  Harummmph!  Well, I guess you got your 
"not so subtle" dig in, there.  I'd like to see a bit more widespread 
approval of such a discussion before actively starting it, anyway, 
especially by some of the "old-timers" here.  (Sadly, as I newbie, I don't 
really even know who the "old timers" are!)  But recently, there's been too 
much traffic anyway!


>> suffered any longterm loss of reputation of his own.  I, on the other hand, 
>> use my REAL NAME.
>
>Whoopie!  A True Name!  Big deal.  I care not one jot whether or not
>you use your REAL NAME.  I have no way of knowing if it is, in fact,
>your real name.  Should it make a difference?

Not necessarily.  As I pointed out before, I'm happy to debate a stable nym 
(a term I learned only a few weeks ago, BTW).  But completely anonymous 
flames from a person who cuts and runs does not improve the S/N ratio of 
this or any other list.

>No one is going to "suffer any longterm loss of reputation" by
>disagreeing with you, or anyone else, whether or not they use a nym
>(or anonymity).

I didn't want anybody to even be able to use the excuse of "I feared for my 
life debating with that vile purveyor of that wacky idea, 'Assassination 
Politics.'  "    I invited him to use a stable nym.


>> Only a fool would have taken an anonymous flamer seriously under those 
>> circumstances.
>
>An anonymous post is no less valid for being anonymous. 

You may be surprised that I absolutely agree.  However, the post was not 
merely "anonymous" but flaming, and the poster didn't stick around.  In 
other words, its anonymity didn't do it in, the motivation of the poster 
did, however.

> The only
>advantage of a stable nym, whether or not it's a True Name, is the
>ability to gain (or lose) reputation through the content of its
>posts.  Perhaps a nym with some reputation is taken more seriously
>than an anonymous poster, but so is an unknown nym.  Neither you nor
>Alan has any reputation to speak of (to me, at least), so an anonymous
>post has no less.

But on the other hand, a flaming "debate" on CP doesn't help any of YOU 
guys, the other readers of CP.  


>>> Jim ignored that request and I removed him from the list.
>> 
>> Read:  "Alan Olsen exercised his authority in his own personal fiefdom, the 
>> "PDX Cypherpunks list."
>
>Are you saying he doesn't have that right?  If it's his list, he can
>do whatever the hell he likes with it.

No, I merely translated "Olsen-speak" into language most of the rest of us 
could understand.  He had that right.  On the other hand, the exercise of 
this right displays Olsen's behavior for all to see.  I wanted there to be 
no doubt on the national list what Alan Olsen was doing.


>> On the contrary, I have no interest in dealing with this sleazy character 
in 
>> email.  He was the one who chose a national list to do his flaming and 
>> baiting, and I think he deserves full "credit."
>
>In other words, you are not interested in resolving any problem you
>have with Alan, you just to make a lot of noise in public in an
>attempt to "embarrass" him.  Go play on some other list where this
>kind of thing is appreciated.
>
>>> The following is the last I will say publically on the matter.
>> 
>> You're going to take your bat and ball and "go thwait home!"  You hear your 
>> mommy calling, Alan.
>
>This list periodically devolves into this childishness.  I'm glad Alan
>is not going to say any more. 

I am, too.


> I award Alan 20 Reputation Points for
>being mature enough to walk away (delayed long enough to see whether
>he does)

As long as the record reflects his misbehavior, I am satisfied as well.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

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

iQCVAwUBMRVpWfqHVDBboB2dAQEzVgQAgIjr4L3tYYgoIAe+H25y8b/Z+mIRq+xz
HaTNntpFyBmIO3hGFLYNW90QurXd0sFHgRQJ0ohN103buI1j1NkqX1O7seKv3FaG
0png19/IkbrssZ7QwXUJU5tVuRY9h6eGi7pt2Rdj/OpkL3neyqKmYu3UmmOHZtMa
j2R/pWwdCwE=
=WXd4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----