From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 20:13:49 +0800
To: Bruce Zambini <JonWienke@aol.com
Subject: Re: Witch Hunts
Message-ID: <m0u3aPB-0008xCC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 04:15 PM 3/31/96 -0500, Bruce Zambini wrote:
>On Sun, 31 Mar 1996 JonWienke@aol.com wrote:
>
>> >My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
>> >"In fact, had Unicorn not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
>> >Detweiler might not have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
>> >00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
>> 
>> Unicorn = Detweiler = Agent Provocateur
>
>Well, I won't say it's impossible.
>
>However, for those of you who are relatively new to the list, Mr. Unicorn 
>has been a regular (and useful) contributor to the list. My belief in 
>this has been unwavering. Excepting, of course, the recent Unicorn/Bell 
>flamefest, which we all get sucked into occasionally.

The fact that you are willing to include the name "Unicorn" in that 
"flamefest" should hold a clue as to the source of the problem.

>My opinion of Mr. Bell on the same issue has varied widely; however, he 
>has participated (in recent times) in more flamewars on the list than 
>anyone, including the usual flamers (ie Perry, me, etc.).

I do, however, promote one of the most controversial ideas you've probably 
ever seen discussed on the computer networks.  You might well imagine that 
doing so would tend to attract people who are like moths attracted to a 
flame.  Thus, a "flamewar."  Notice that Unicorn tries to flame me on 
practically every subject he can, which should be another clue as to his 
motivations.

If you've ever had a controversial work published in a mass-media outlet 
(and the Internet is turning into just such a thing) you'll notice that 
you'll get unsolicited letters from people, some of whom aren't quite "all 
there", and  people who obviously have their own ax to grind.  Often both. 
(I had a guest editorial published in the Portland Oregonian newspaper about 
six years ago, so I speak from experience.)  Usually that ends quickly; 
people have short memories and are distracted by newer events.  In the 
computer network area, however, the opportunity for follow-ups is ever-present.

That's why I'm not surprised about people like Unicorn.  It would probably 
be excessive to say "he's crazed," but he clearly spends an unusual amount 
of effort.  Check out the CP archives a few days ago; I did an experiment, 
choosing to not to respond to nearly all of his notes.  He kept writing!

>It is also interesting to note that Mr. Unicorn talks knowledgably about 
>several fields; Mr. Bell talks about one field, and there are those who 
>would dispute his knowledge about it.

Quite the contrary:  While my degree is in Chemistry, most particularly 
Organic Chemistry (but also Physical chemistry, solid-state chemistry, and 
inorganic chemistry), I am rather knowledgeable about physics (including 
nuclear, high-energy, semiconductor, astrophysics, etc), electronics (analog and digital; 
I was frequently mistaken for a EE student during my college years), optics, 
computer hardware, a smattering of computer software, radio (I'm a ham) and 
a few other fields. 

This, however, is the "Cypherpunks" area, and with the exception of some 
bomb-trigger discussions a few weeks ago, much of that knowledge isn't 
commonly shown in the majority of the discussions here.  It's odd, 
therefore, that you would suggest that I "talk about one field," as if that 
was somehow my limit.  If anything, it shows that I (at least in your eyes) 
pay more attention to the subject of the list than Unicorn.

If you really want to start talking about some of these other fields, I'd be 
happy to, but I don't think that would improve  the specificity of the list. 
Other people might object, as well.  We go on enough tangents as it is.


>I have had an e-mail correspondence with Mr. Bell that lasted several 
>messages. In it, we were both civil and friendly; I post this now not to 
>take sides in the flamewar, but merely to note that, in my opinion, it is 
>improbable that Black Unicorn is Detweiller, and that, although I missed 
>the origin of this thread, it is likely a suggestion from Mr. Bell or one 
>of his associates, intended to discredit him.

This sounds like a conspiracy theory.  I don't have any "associates."  And I 
have never posted on any list, echo, USENET group, or bbs under an alias, 
and I am posting with my real name.  I'm listed in the phone directory for Vancouver, 
Washington, and I've never had an unlisted telephone number.

Until Unicorn is willing to identify himself with the same amount of 
verifiable detail, it is in his direction you should look for conspiracies.

>If Mr. Unicorn is indeed Detweiller, it is in the mold of Vlad Z. Nuri, 
>who (while almost certainly Detweiller) has produced useful contributions 
>on the list, while refraining from acting out.

What, exactly, is your definition of a "useful contribution"?

>It is also worth noting that the original Detweiller, in a sense, played 
>De Sade to Tim May's Rousseau, in that he used an unorthodox, but 
>effective, critical technique. (This is, in fact, one reading of De 
>Sade's "pornography" -- an interesting counterexample to what was 
>trumpeted on _Both_ sides of the recent Firing Line debate: that 
>pornography or obscenity is, whether or not protected, devoid of any 
>intellectual content.)

Somebody ( I don't recall who) once opined to me that Unicorn behaves toward 
me somewhat like Detweiler behaved towards Tim May.  I probably missed most 
of that, but I can see the similaries.  This doesn't make him Detweiler, but 
it suggests that his motivations are similar.


One last thing:  On re-reading your note, I noticed that your writing style 
is rather... how shall I say... familiar.  Care to discuss how you did it?  
Did you use a program?

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com