From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 19:32:57 -0800 (PST)
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Subject: Re: Secrecy: My life as a nym. (Was: nym blown?)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.94.961110173517.12339E-100000@polaris>
Message-ID: <199611130331.TAA28661@netcom11.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>I'm sure some clever participant at DCSB will do a pile of homework before
>coming to my talk and put it all together.  So be it.  If he or she is
>polite, they might chide me in private a bit, but not blather all over the
>list just to show how very clever they were.  As long as they enjoy the
>talk, I'm not overly concerned.

or then again, maybe they'll sell it to BLACKNET!! <g>

actually Unicorn, eventually voice analysis software may
evolve to the point that someone could match people
based on their voices to public speech databases, and you
could be nailed through your phone conversations. hmmmm, have you
ever had a conversation with someone who might have been
taping you for amusement?

(heh. you write a long, self-indulgent letter about the extremes
you have gone to keep your ID secret, and pretend to be blase' &
nonchalant if someone discovers it? I think I can see through
that smokescreen.)

actually, I heard this interesting rumor that Unicorn threatened
to sue someone who "defamed" his pseudonym. quite an amusing
story if true, given his last essay that talks about how he
created the pseudonym in the first place to avoid exactly what
it accomplishes, i.e. dissociating his professional identity
from the "lunatic anarchist" writhing beneath the surface.

actually, there are some amusing things going on here with cpunk
"rules." are cpunks in favor of pseudonyms or not? one famous
cpunk madman wrote under a pseudonym to the list, and many
cypherpunk went to great lengths to try to derive his identity.
is this a case of respecting pseudonyms? or is it more a case of
the double standard at best, hypocrisy at worst, 
"respect my pseudonyms, but yours are fair game"?  

one noted proponent of pseudonymity, whom we will merely call "Timmy", 
regularly takes great glee in misattributing my own posts to some 
deranged crackpot running loose in cyberspace. is this a case
of respecting my identity? suppose I really was this person-- 
shouldn't Timmy's position be one of respect for my use of
a pseudonym? of course he is too immature and feebleminded to
even consider this discrepancy in his philosophy. cpunks are
not known for having coherent philosophies that answer simple
questions of actions in the face of quandaries. the basic
cpunk philosophy, as amply illustrated by 2/3 of its founders, is
"look out for #1 only, and don't waste time on something as
inane as selfless public service or leadership"