From: logos <logos@c2.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 23:34:12 -0800 (PST)
To: "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" <dlv@bwalk.dm.com>
Subject: Re: Logos here
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.961203223506.1499B-100000@crl8.crl.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.961203224626.10240A-100000@blacklodge.c2.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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?
 
> >      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.
 
> 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.

> "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? 
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
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.

> 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?

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
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.

Respectfully yours,

Logos out