From: logos <logos@c2.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 1996 22:12:26 -0800 (PST)
To: dlv@bwalk.dm.com
Subject: Intellectual dishonesty
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.961204211709.13090A-100000@blacklodge.c2.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Dimitri Vulis wrote:

> > LOGOS <logos@c2.net> writes:
> >
> >    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...

     Yes I do recall some of those statements.  Since you
feel that those 'attacks' were inappropriate, is it not
intellectually dishonest to engage in such 'attacks' 
yourself?  If it was wrong for them, how can it be right
for you?  
     If your age, sex, sexual preference, race, ethnicity,
mother tongue, nationality, etc. are irrelevant to the 
discussions on this list, what possible justification is
there for you to raise such issues in my case? 

I wrote:

> > 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

To which you replied:

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

     This is truly a non-sequitor. I am sure you know 
better than this.  Tim May is responsible for his actions;
you are responsible for yours. Taken to it's logical
conclusion, if Tim were to murder a random Russian 
immigrant, you would be justified in killing a random
native American.  
     As I said before, you are obviously too smart to 
seriously entertain such an irrational viewpoint. Thus
it is difficult to draw any conclusion other then that
you are rationalizing your inappropriate behaviour.

> You sound like someone who doesn't read this list, but only "reads the 
> logs" and sees the complaints from the likes of Arsen...

     Actually, I read it quite thoroughly.

> 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: [elided]

     Again, would you please explain the logical basis
for committing the same abuses you cite from others?  I
would think you would seek to distance yourself from such
behavior, rather than to exceed it.  The inappropriate 
abuse of the 1000 members of this list by others can in no 
way excuse their further abuse by you.  

> > 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.

     No, I want intellectual honesty. But even if I look 
upstairs from toad.com and find intellectual dishonesty, 
how would that in any way mitigate your apparent 
intellectual dishonesty? Are you arguing that one is
somehow dependent on, or the result of the other?  This
makes no sense to me.  Does it to you? 

> > 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,...

     The above does not appear to make sense. Did you leave
something out? It is unclear to me how rude and provocative
personal attacks and broad, unkind generalizations about 
Cypherpunk list members defends freedom of speech, protects
privacy or promotes cryptography. Would you please explain
the rationale behind your actions?

Logos out