From: Anonymous <nobody@REPLAY.COM>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 09:33:31 +0800
To: cypherpunks@Algebra.COM
Subject: Re: words have value, for good or ill
Message-ID: <199712060125.CAA04113@basement.replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Tim May writes:

> To compound the debating style errors made by Anonymous and his
> supporter(s), Anonymous also misrepresented my views about McVeigh and OKC.
> In a series of posts a few months or so ago, I made my position clear: that
> I could "understand" McVeigh's actions, in the same way one can understand
> someone snapping under pressure. I also pooh-poohed the "human tragedy"
> aspects of the OKC story in the same way any warrior must pooh-pooh
> specific cases where innocents, alleged or real, die in battles.

What Tim May actually wrote on May 9, 1997, was:

> Every day that passes, I'm more convinced that McVeigh did the right thing.
> Some innocents died, but, hey, war is hell. Broken eggs and all that.

This is not a matter of "understanding" McVeigh's actions.  This is a
matter of agreeing with them, of becoming convinced that he did the right
thing.  It is a totally different position.

Consider: anyone might legitimately say they could understand why the
government opposes access to cryptography.  It represents a threat to
their monopoly power.  But if someone said they were becoming convinced
that restrictions on access to crypto were a good thing, we'd be attacking
them in an instant.  These are two completely different issues.  One is
a matter of understanding evil motivations, which we can all benefit by.
The other is a matter of advocacy of evil.  That must be opposed, and
in fact this list has been a strong force for such opposition.

When Tim May was explicitly offered an opportunity to repudiate his earlier
statement, he refused.  He wrote, in response to that offer:

> I mean what I say and I say what I mean. Get used to it. Or leave, even better.

So there it is in black and white.  Tim May refuses to withdraw his
earlier comments about becoming convinced that McVeigh did the right
thing.  He means what he says and he says what he means.  Yet he attempts
to characterize them in other messages as a matter of "understanding"
McVeigh's actions.  He is trying to have it both ways: powerful rhetoric
followed by mealy-mouthed temporizing.

Perhaps the answer is simply that May does not agree with his earlier
comments, but is too much of a coward to admit that he was wrong.
These mis-characterizations of his views are his attempt to amend and
correct them without having to concede that he, the great Tim May,
made a mistake.

This would not reflect very well on him, but it may be consistent with his
character.  Has May ever admitted to a mistake on any non-trivial matter?
Perhaps not.

The problem this raises is that it is difficult to know where May stands
on any issue.  He makes contradictory statements, refuses to reconcile
them, even refuses to admit that they are contradictory.  Which is his
true view?  No doubt, whichever one turns out to be most convenient in
the end.

What a weak and childish individual this is, this man who is said to be
the most respected of the cypherpunks.