From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 07:52:04 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Counterproductive Dorothy Denning Flames
In-Reply-To: <199611281111.AAA26386@mycroft.actrix.gen.nz>
Message-ID: <c6X4XD15w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Paul Foley <mycroft@actrix.gen.nz> writes:

> On Wed, 27 Nov 96 19:57:27 EST, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
>
>    Yes. On the Internet it may not be immediately evident that the other side
>    of the debate is represented by clueless juveniles with whom you simply
>    wouldn't talk in a physical encounter. Trying to explain the need for key
>
> Or people who act like clueless juveniles on the net, while seeming to
> be nice, rational adults in real life.  I hear you fit that
> description fairly well (I, of course, can only speak for the online side).

That's in the eye of the beholder. I certainly don't have to be polite if I
choose to address a cybergang of raving ignorant flamers who oppose free
speech and advocate content-based censorship. Is John Gilmore polite to me?

>    > I must admit that I am at a loss to understand the heat which
>    > Dorothy Denning generates on the Cypherpunks list, which seems to
>    > be second only to the heat generated by posting recipes for roast
>    > feline in rec.pets.cats.
>
>    I've seen other people abused on this mailing list - usually, whoever
>    knows more about cryptography then the regular "lynch mob".
>
> "Knows more" == "rants endlessly about how the letters "Q.E.D." and
> some nonsense about hot air balloons render a cryptosystem
> unbreakable."

You're lying. I never said anything like that. Fred Cohen never said
anything like that. Dorothy Denning (whose name the cypherpunks can't spell)
never said anything like that. On the contrary, Paul Bradley who rants about
brute force attacks on OTP, is considered top 'punks' cryptography expert.

>    I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Denning in person and I asked her
>    about her views on GAK. Her responses made a lot of sense to me. Most
>    businesses, if they thought about it, would prohibit their employers
>    from having information on company computers encrypted so the owner
>    of the computer can't read them. This is just good business sense.
>
> Of course it is.  And they can do this, today, without any
> legislation!  I believe the commercial version of PGP (Business
> Edition?) has support for this.
>
> This is, of course, totally unrelated to GAK (unless you consider
> people to be the property of their government, I suppose).

This semester I'm teaching an undergraduate course in economics and I find it
very challenging to explain, e.g. the Laffer curve to students who have never
paid any taxes. Or, some students couldn't understand the difference between
different flat-rate pre-paid medical plans vs. pay-as-you-go medical plans.
They've never encountered anything like this in their lives and it takes weeks
for new concepts to sink in.

Indeed, I recall how a few years ago my wife was teaching a calculus course
and she told me about an inner-city student who was reasonably bright, but
had never left the inner city in her life. She had trouble with word
problems involving, e.g., mountains (popular in calculus texts :-) because
she had never seen one and couldn't quite understand what it was.

When cypherpunk juveniles rant about GAK, they are unable to present any
arguments for or against it other than personal attacks and name-calling
(like the recent pile of sexual innuendo e-mailed anonymously to Dr.Denning).
To me this shows that they're ignorant of the cryptography issues involved,
of law enforcement, of corporate data security policy, and are either too
young to know or unwilling to learn.

Why do you think I don't discuss my work on this mailing list?

>    This mailing list suffers from the presence of several mentally disturbed
>    juveniles who a) are clearly ignorant of cryptography (e.g. rant about
>    brute force attacks on OTP); b) are cognizant of their utter ignorance and
>    stupidity; c) are envious of anyone who does know what s/he's talking
>    about.
>
> d) rant endlessly about Tim May.
> e) put "(fart)" or "(spit)" after every other word.
> f) rant about John Gilmore's alleged sexual preferences.  (I seem to
>    recall something about Tsutomu Shimomura "stealing" his girlfriend??)

Huh? I met Tsutomu once, briefly. I'm sure he's capable of stealing people's
girlfriends, being rich and good-looking, but I doubt very much that John
Gilmore has one. (Not that it's relevant. Cygnus Support's hiring practices
are relevant, since they demonstrate what an asshole Gilmore is. I used to
respect Gilmore, but not anymore. He's a liar and a content-based censor.)

> g) continually bring up Paul Bradley's "brute forcing a OTP" post,
>    which was quite clearly a simple misunderstanding.
>
> [and h) probably rant about me for a while now.  Prove me wrong.]

Yeah, let's talk about Paul Bradley. (A U.K. undergraduate who probably
doesn't deserve the time we spend talking about him.) Paul flames
ceaselessly on the cypherpunks mailing list, refers to Don Wood as "Don Wood
(spit)", has sent me numerous threatening e-mails, does not understand what
either "brute force" or "OTP" is, and is unwilling to learn. Now, most
undergraduates don't know what brute force and/or OTP are, but they can
learn and they do learn if they intend to discuss the subject at such
length. Paul is a typical ignorant "cypherpunk". He likes to rant about
crypto because it's "kewl", but doesn't want to invest the time in learning
the meaning of the words he (mis)uses. "Punks" is well-chosen name.

>    So, they feel compelled to harrass anyone who's smarter / more
>    knowledgeable than they are (sometimes using the anonymous remailers) in
>
> Ah!  That explains the "Timmy (fart) May" posts!  *Now* I get it!

Tim May is a coward, afraid to sign his name on his own flames. E.g., I've
received several hate e-mails via the anonymous remailers saying stuff like
"kill all Russian immigrants". Tim May is known to hate immigrants and Jews
(advocates the destruction of Israel etc).

>    The continuing verbal abuse of Dr. Denning is no different from the abuse
>    previously heaped on Fred Cohen or David Sternlight or yours truly.
>
> The only "continuing verbal abuse" I've seen on this list is you and
> those "Freedom Knight" twits abusing Tim May and John Gilmore.

You're lying again - or you don't consider cypherpunks calling Dr. Denning
"clueless bitch" to be verbal abuse?

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps