From: nobody@huge.cajones.com (Huge Cajones Remailer)
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 06:11:21 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: attila the hun (was Re: Wine Politics Again!)
Message-ID: <199705212141.OAA14578@fat.doobie.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Adam Back wrote:
> Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> > At 11:13 PM 5/20/97 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
> > >On Tue, May 20, 1997 at 04:23:10PM +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote:
> >       [rant deleted - bill]
> > >Speaking of power corrupting, notice how the power to speak
> > >anonymously has destroyed this poor souls brain.
 
  When Attila T. Hun posts to the list, I can tell you how many
hours, days and minutes it has been since his last post. I know
when I see his name on a post that he has something to say. 
  Perhaps the most telling comment I have heard about him was
when a fellow cypherpunk said about Attila, "When he replies to
one of my posts I never know if he's going to kiss me or rip
me a new asshole.  He doesn't respond to my _reputation capital_
or my perceived net persona--he responds to what I express in
my posting."

  I don't have a problem with the opinions or points of view that
Kent expresses on the cypherpunks list, but I do have a problem
with the fact that his posts seem to reflect a pre-programmed
world-view, with little thought given to the actual content and
concepts expressed by those he is replying to.
  I find Kent's posts to be much like the ASCII art that is posted
to the list--each post is slightly different, but predictable. The
aspersions that Kent casts on those such as Attila and Tim serve
no purpose other than to accentuate the fact that he is envious
of their propensity for dealing on a real-world level with the
concepts he addresses from an intellectual ivory tower.

> > Attila's not anonymous - he's a regular poster, and has been
> > for long enough to build up some reputation around his penname.

  There are people I have known for years--their _real_ name, where
they live, went to school, the annual average rainfall in their
hometown, etc.--but I know very little about who they really are--
how they think, what they believe, etc.
   I know a lot more about Attila T. Hun. His posts reflect who he
is, where he's been, what he's done, and his perceptions about
himself and the world around him. His posts reflect his persona.
   Kent's posts reflect, in my opinion, what he has "learned to
believe." When I read Kent's posts, I don't feel like I learn
who he is, but rather, I learn the "position" that he is taking
on this or that point.
   Real name/anonymity aside, I see Attila as real and Kent as a
shadowy figure. My advice to Kent would be, "If you're going to
be an asshole, at least be a _real_ asshole." I enjoy the exchange
of differing viewpoints (and genuine conflicts) on the cypherpunks
list, because it gives me food for thought about positions and
viewpoints that I have dichotimous feelings about, but I have
little use for lukewarm, passive-aggressive exchanges. (I prefer
the pissing contests between raving maniacs.)

> In short I believe you picked on the wrong guy if you considered
> Attila an example of someone with lots to say when hiding behind
> strong anonymity.

  I have used a variety of "names" as a writer, musician and as a
fugitive from injustice. Whenever I looked in the mirror, however,
I always saw the same face. And no matter what "persona" I am using,
I find that I feel most like "myself" when I speak and act honestly,
no matter whether my stance is homeostatic or dichotymous.
  I have done traffic/personality/pseudonym analysis on the list for
years and have uncovered a plethora of anonymous personas. Some use
anonymity to "step out of" their regular list persona. Some use it
to address issues that could not deal with under their regular
persona because of a need to protect their perceived public/social
image. Some use anonymity because of personal or business conflicts
that could be used against them by those who feel threatened by
honesty. Others use anonymity because it is fun to play "hide and
seek" with list members who know them well enough to suspect who
they _really_ are.

  I first encountered the "TruthMonger" persona in 1989 and have
followed its evolution since that time. The better I got at 
tracking the various entities assuming the TruthMonger persona,
the more I realized that those who claim to "know" or "expose"
who a particular TruthMonger _really_ is are wrong about
90% of the time.
  The reason for this is simple.
  Once we form an "opinion" of _who_ somebody is and _what_they_
believe_, and _who_they_are_, then we "interpret" what they
have to say in their posts in accordance with our learned
perception of them. Accordingly, we fail to see the naturally
occuring dichotomys and inconsistencies that are inherent in
living, learning and adapting to the evolution of thought which
comes with an expanding mental and emotional paridigm.
  When the same person posts anonymously, then those who know
them and have an "opinion" of who they are and what they think
can no longer categorize their post automatically and interpret
it in the "usual" manner.

  Anonymity forces the reader to consider the content that is
contained in the post, rather than automatically consigning it
to the proper "box" according to the established persona of a
regular poster.
  Many people are not comfortable with not being able to
"assign" an anonymous persona with the author's appropriate
mental "box" so they attribute this or that post with this
or that list member and respond accordingly.

  I am posting this anonymously.
  Who am I? I am the person who believes what I have written here
and who doesn't want what I am expressing to be classified 
according to what I wrote yesterday.

I am:
TruthMonger # -96