From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 19:41:56 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Intellectual dishonesty
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.961203224626.10240A-100000@blacklodge.c2.net>
Message-ID: <P6XFyD75w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


OK - logos claims that he misspelled my name by accient.
Let's give him one more chance.

logos <logos@c2.net> writes:

> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM <dlv@bwalk.dm.com> wrote:
>
> > LOGOS <logos@c2.net> writes:
> >
> > > Sovereign collegues,
> >
> > You already sound like a jerk.
>
>      Perhaps you should suspend judgment until you have the
> opportunity to evaluate the content of my posts.  What are
> you antagonistic to the use of honorifics?

Because reading fantasyland jargon (like 'Toad Hall') wastes my time.

> > >      I am Logos. I have adopted this pseudonym to conceal my
> > > 'true name'. I want the ideas which I shall be espousing
> > > to stand or fall on their own merits and not on the basis
> > > of biases that my name, sex, ethnicity, etc. might otherwise
> >
> > sexual preferences...
>
>      Yes, that and other catagorizations which are
> irrelevant to the primary focus of this list.

It's funny that you should say this, since Tim May and other prominent
"cypher punks" devote so much attention to their "enemies'" ethnicity and
religion. Recall the attacks on "crazy Russians", "immigrants who abuse
American freedoms", the recent attack on Hispanics, the attacks on Jews,
the attacks on Mormons...

> > That's right. You lack the decorum to spell either my
> > first name or my last name correctly.
>
>      'Decorum' has to do with polite behaviour.  While I
> was certainly remiss in my hasty spelling of your name, it
> was not intentional, therefore not a lack of decorum. I
> do apologize for my negligence. I shall endeavor to spell
> you name correctly in the future.

I find it hard to believe that one misspells "Vulis" as "Vilus"
unintentionally, but I'll give you another chance...

> > "Cypher punks" are a gang of uncouth juveniles
>
>      I'm not sure I understand the relevance of this
> comment. Was it made in response to my error in spelling?

Oops! I accidentally deleted a big chunk of my own article before
sending it out. Sorry. I'll see if I can find it.

> In any case, it is a good example of the informal logical
> fallacy of 'over generalization'. As I understand it, there
> are circa 1000 people subscribed to Cypherpunks.  To paint
> an entire group with such a characterization is both
> illogical and unfair. I also question your use of the

What about painting entire ethnic or religion groups, as Timmy May does?

> word 'uncouth'.  I have seen no posts on Cypherpunks
> that were any more 'uncultured; crude; or boorish' than
> those posted by you.  I am not saying that uncouth posts
> have not been made by others, but it is disingenuous for
> one to judge others by a standard that one does not apply
> to one's self.

You sound like someone who doesn't read this list, but only "reads the logs"
and sees the complaints from the likes of Arsen... I've recently quoted the
selected writings of Paul Bradley, most of which were far more "uncultured;
crude; or boorish" that anything I ever said. For example:

]From: paul@fatmans.demon.co.uk
]To: "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" <dlv@bwalk.dm.com>
]Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 17:37:23 +0000
]Subject: Re: CIA hacked
]Message-Id: <843401979.17072.0@fatmans.demon.co.uk>
]
]> >Dr. John M. Grubor created the 'net.
]>
]> Who created you? You tub of shit?
]
]
]Fuck you and fuck your cheap ass fucked up life motherfucker (look
]for the fuck redundancy index here, should be an interesting figure,
]motherfucker)
]
]good day to you
<sig>

(The "tub of shit" quote isn't from me either.)

Here's what Graham-John Bullers of alt.2600.moderated infamy said:

]Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 12:15:35 -0700 (MST)
]From: Graham-John Bullers <real@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>
]To: "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" <dlv@bwalk.dm.com>
]Subject: Re: Hurray! A good example of rational thinking ...
]In-Reply-To: <sJaByD32w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
]Message-Id: <Pine.A41.3.95.961202121501.43508D-100000@fn2.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>
]
]GROW UP CUNT
]
]
]        http://www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~real/index.html
]
]                                          : real@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
]Graham-John Bullers                  email
]                                          : ab756@freenet.toronto.on.ca

(I had dozens of these, but I only saved some.)

How do you expect one to carry out a _polite conversation with these "punks"?
I mostly choose to ignore this lot, or to re-state my opinion of them.

> > What logic? "Cypher punks" such as Paul Bradley are incapable of
> > discussing a technical topic (such as Don Wood's IPG proposal) without
> > putting "(spit)" after Don's name
>
> I could be wrong, but I believe this was done as an
> intentional parody of your own similar posts. If it is
> illogical for Paul Bradley to do this, does it not follow
> that is was illogical when you did it as well?

Paul tries to suppress the discussion of crypto on this list. Before I gave up
on this list completely, I used to think that it's a veru evil thing to do.
Even if there are problems with Don Wood's IPG cryptoscheme (something I don't
know to be true until I find the time to look at it myself), it's outright
evil to harrass Don the way Paul did. It's clear that Don knows more about the
field of cryptography than most people remaining on this mailing list. If
indeed there are holes in his scheme (and I don't know that), it certainly is
no excuse to submit him to the kind of verbal abuse that he's been subjected
to on this list. Would you submit the authors of the knapsack scheme to the
same kind of abuse because it was broken? In fact, how many people are there
still on this list who know what the knapsack scheme is?

> It is obvious to me that you are an intelligent person.
> I am concerned, however, with your apparent intellectual
> dishonesty.  It would appear that you know perfectly well

You want intellectual dishonesty - look upstairs from toad.com.

> that your posts serve no purpose in the cause of promoting
> privacy through the use of cryptography.  It is hard to
> draw any other conclusion then that you are intentionally
> being provocative for the purpose of disrupting the work
> of this list.  If this is not so, I apologize, but how
> else can we judge your actions?  Please step outside of
> yourself for a moment and give us an honest self-assessment
> of your behavior and the motives behind it.

The work of this list appears to be character assassination. If people like
Paul Bradley and Tim May insist on slandering people and trying to harm their
professional reputations (see the thread on "don't hire" lists), I will do my
best to defend them and their freedom of speech, and to expose the likes of
Paul Bradley - an ignorant buffoon out to silence anyone who knows more about
the field than he does.

---

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