1996-03-24 - Re: detweiling

Header Data

From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: bd802efe37644f590732873247c60df9b5bba5749d925600d9f024772d81aafd
Message ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960323224026.5638D-100000@elaine30.Stanford.EDU>
Reply To: <v02120d0aad79c1c4b7ce@[]>
UTC Datetime: 1996-03-24 07:32:21 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 15:32:21 +0800

Raw message

From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 1996 15:32:21 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: detweiling
In-Reply-To: <v02120d0aad79c1c4b7ce@[]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960323224026.5638D-100000@elaine30.Stanford.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Sat, 23 Mar 1996, Robert Hettinga wrote:

> At 6:18 AM 3/23/96, Rich Graves wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Mar 1996, Anonymous wrote:
> >>  <Detweiler stuff.>
> > <Rich's response to Detweiler stuff>
> Uh, Rich?...
> You've probably been detweiled by Detweiler himself.

Gee, really? What makes you think so?

> Someone around here has a concordance program, called MEDUSA, if I remember
> right, which can spot Detweiler pretty well by statistical analysis of the
> words he uses.

Someone has a stylistic spoofing program, called markov, that can produce
output triggering a positive on the MEDUSA test. One of the distributors 
of this program is (or was) qut@netcom.com. 

See the recent posts by "L. Detweiler" in alt.2600, news.groups, and

This "L. Detweiler" seems to have failed to appreciate how frequently I
write in conscious self-parody, especially as rich@c2.org. His analysis
of the "detweiling" attack is largely correct, but he greatly
overestimated my ego. It'll all come out soon enough, probably about the
time the comet drops under the horizon. 

> > (p.s. I imagine quite a few people will accuse "me" of
> > being detweiler. I assure you my amusement will at least
> > exceed or match that which detweiler ever obtained.)
> ... Which could have been put there on purpose. You Never Know... ;-).
> All this and the fact that he now wants to convert his name into a verb.

Why not? I think it's a useful term. John Crapper's name will always be 
remembered; why not Detweiler's? I think he deserves that kind of