From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 1996 09:23:20 +0800
To: David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com>
Subject: Re: Sternlight on C'punks
In-Reply-To: <v03007602ae109d824fba@[192.187.162.15]>
Message-ID: <199607161754.KAA25543@netcom18.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>And another thing. The reason I've not joined this group earlier had
>nothing to do with "worthy". It was because after discussion a year or so
>ago, Tim May suggested to me via e-mail that it would just generate a lot
>of controversy, at a time when people were so polarized that they couldn't
>hear each other and thus my presence here would serve no useful purpose.  I
>took Tim's advice and stayed out.
>

frankly I think a mailing list that can't tolerate informed
but  dissenting views such as your own without self-destructing has
an inherent problem that exists independent of your participation.
perhaps it is a valuable public service to expose such a flaw. at
least, that's the hacker spirit. as for TCM recommending you not
join, I'm disappointed to hear anyone so ostensibly and vocally
committed to free speech would tell anyone that their presence
would be "disruptive" or "controversial" and recommend against it.

>I thought that by now the more extreme dogmatists among you would have
>matured, especially given the evidence generated by the real world about
>how things are and are going if nothing rational and effective is done to
>stop it. Some of you have met me at Crypto and found I'm not the devil
>incarnate. Some of you know that we share many (but not all) policy views
>in common.

well, I find you to have mellowed yourself after a legendary amount
of back and forth in cyberspace, although I would still consider
some of your own views "dogmatic" as you term it.

>
>The presenting symptom for my joining now was a copy of a post by an MIT
>professor I respect to this group, which a colleague sent me. Perhaps I was
>too hasty in my belief that we can begin to hear each other.

I personally find your GAK positions superior to those of the
administration, at least, although that's almost the lowest-common
denominator litmus test for not starting massive flamewars on the 
list.

a suggestion: get a pseudonym! if you only care about debate, you
can debate to your heart's content through it. it's trivial in
cyberspace. if, however, you want your posts to accrue to your
"true name" because you are uptight about maximizing your "reputation",
then this won't work. imho, it does separate the men from the boys
in some ways, the way people use and deal with pseudonymity.
do they openly advocate it yet fall back on ideas of "true names"
randomly relative to it? do they play games like relentlessly try
to connect-the-dots of pseudonyms to "true names" via their speculation
or whatever? do they feel they have to defend their pseudonym's posts
as much as they would those under their so-called "real" name?
all signs of cyberspatial immaturity imho.  

in fact as I understand it, from the fragments of legends tossed around here,
this is all what caused Detweiler to self-destruct,
when his neurons melted down from contemplating the ramifications
of pseudonymity. yet you can see signs of "pseudoparanoia" 
even among the most "respectable" here.

"there is no limit to what a man can accomplish if he doesn't
insist on getting credit"...