From: nobody@huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer)
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 1997 16:53:26 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Tim May badmouths anonymity.
Message-ID: <199704050053.QAA11133@fat.doobie.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Timothy C. May wrote:
> 
> This kind of ad hominem is to be expected from someone hiding behind
> anonymity.

  What a hypocrytical crock of shit.
  Are you concerned that your pal, Hallam-Baker, won't be able to 
"testify" against me when the Feds kick in my door as a supporter
of Jim Bell?

>  This message is clear-signed as being
> from "TruthMonger," but, in fact, it could be from anyone.

  TruthMonger is a multi-user Net persona, meant to be used
for that very reason.
  It is handy for lessening the ability of others to refuse to
deal with presented facts and logic, instead choosing to 
attempt refuting opinions through grand pronouncements as
to the writer's position in an imaginary elitist reputation 
capital scheme.

> If it is from
> the entity TruthMonger, and he wishes to have a persistent net personna, he
> ought to look into PGP-signing his remailed messages, or using a nym
> account.

  I have a persistent net persona. It's in your killfile.
 
> And as for my views causing the tanks to roll through Poland, etc., this is
> "magical thinking" at its worst. *
  {* DisinfoTranslation Technique (c) Greg Broiles}

  Either get your head out of your butt and learn to accurately
read and/or interpret the statements of others, or get a job
at C2Net.

> >  So, Tim and Phill, which one of you wants to step up to the plate
> >and be the first one to attempt to ostracize him so that his views
> >about the need for anonymous communications will not be taken as
> >representative of the cypherpunks views?
> 
> Fatuous nonsense. I'm not sure what "TruthMonger" means by "ostracize."

  There seems to be a tendency by some on the list to dismiss 
the posts of others by labeling them a 'loon' or somesuch 
derogatory term, rather than  addressing their logic and 
message, per se. 
  The fact that Bell tends to beat the AP drum ceaselessly may
make his repetiveness boring, but in no way makes his system
less valid than more mainstream methodologies. There is hardly
anyone on the list whose missives don't occassionally skip
like a broken record, but they are not labeled lunatics as 
long as they stay in the middle of the road. 
  (You might say that Bell has a "persistent net persona.")

TruthMonger