who, me?!?!

> tmp@netcom.com says:
> > 
> > >	I will always have connection to the internet if I desire
> > >	it, be it legal or not, 
> > 
> > pure faith. nothing guarantees this to you.
>
> In spite of being a complete asshole, Detweiler, you've managed to get
> account after account. Doesn't that mean anything to you?

!?!?!?!?! detweiler this, detweiler that!!! why does everyone keep
calling me `detweiler' when my name is `tmp@netcom.com'?!!
look, i admit i am posting pseudonymously, but your 
detweilerian witchhunt is a good reason why
its not really a good idea for *anyone* here to post under their real
name, given all this hostility, particularly to the newbies. this
digital stalking is really unconscionable and intolerable. 

besides, even if i were detweiler--
is it just me, or does anyone get overly upset by these kinds of ad hominem
attacks? seems like they should reserved for usenet & dorothy denning.
<mouth wide open here> i'm a bit shocked, because i have always found parry 
to be very civil in the newsgroups. 

i am just a good cyberspatial citizen trying to build up
reputation under a new name, and it doesn't help that just because i 
i use the word `detweiler', you throw me in your kill files.
it was YOU YOU YOU who brought up this detweiler bugaboo.

 maybe detweiler would be happy designing those fingerprint id keyboards
for the nsa. as it stands, though, i don't see any significant 
evidence that he is continuing his apparently over-dramatized 
`harassment campaign'  on the list. you guys look pretty weird
ranting over this detweiler guy. as far as i can tell, all he has
ever done is write idiotic anonymous postings, and that's not
very unusual. just a lot of `cyberbole' IMHO.

(i have seen some of the detweilerian idiocy in the newsgroups, and
he loves to pretend that he has `decoy' addresses. so if you are
in a really paranoid mood, i suppose you could consider me a decoy.
if i really were a decoy, the ruse would seem to be working very 
well. while `i' am running into all kinds of flames, maybe some of
his other postings under other pseudonyms are going completely
unchallenged.)

( in fact, considering that he has apparently lost at
least one address, maybe he is doing this as preventative medicine
in the future. i assume that everyone who has yelled at me and
cursed me as a `detweiler' so far (tcmay, erik hughes, parry meztger,
 etc.) are his prime enemies.  lighten up guys, i assure
you that, to the contrary, i am nothing but a harmless pseudonym.)

do you guys frown on pseudonymous postings to this list?
i'm not too sure of the ettiquete around here. it seems to me that
cyberspace is an essentially anonymous place, and no amount of 
screeching by the detweilers of the world is ever going to change
that.

besides, the constitution
guarantees the right to privacy, which is essentially the same thing
as using pseudonyms in cyberspace. we all have a right to trick
and deceive the privacy-invading corporate monsters of the world
about our identity. the lone underdog needs all the tools he can get
to prevent the `information oppression' that we call Big Business.
software like PGP frees us from the shackles of tyranny that our
government chains us in daily. 

things like social security numbers
and total IDs on every check we pass is orwellian. i had to get
a new apartment recently, and the credit check was really horrendous.
they wanted past and present employer etc. and made *me* pay $20
for them to process the application!!! just so i could have the
great privilege of paying them rent every month!!!

that reminds me. it would be really useful to sneak into trw
and look at detweiler's credit history, if we really wanted to
keep track of him. surely there are some cpunks who could pull
that off <g>. hee hee, this is detweiler we are talking about, after
all, and he should be hunted down like a rabid rat, hee hee. i'm
really interested what becomes of that latest `detweiler hunt'
proposed by whats-his-name on the list.

(ok, ok, i promise not to use the d-word if everyone else stops too. <g>
but so far with everyone yelling `detweiler' in this crowded theater,
 it's tough to avoid it.)

p.s. i love you too, parry meztger, erik hughes, and tc may  :)

hey, i have an idea. since you guys have so much hostility to detweiler,
maybe just for kicks i could start a `what to do with detweiler' list.
send me your favorite ideas and i will post a summary. it could be
kind of entertaining. we already have `hunt him down like a dog' -- 
any others? be creative!!! we could use it as the official document
to mailbomb anyone who uses the d-word. <g>

On Wed, 6 Apr 1994 tmp@netcom.com wrote:

> !?!?!?!?! detweiler this, detweiler that!!! why does everyone keep
> calling me `detweiler' when my name is `tmp@netcom.com'?!!

The above listed information is NOT a name.

> look, i admit i am posting pseudonymously, but your 
> detweilerian witchhunt is a good reason why

  Remember the price of being anonymous... Nobody has to believe a word you 
say.

  I've sat back and watched my box fill with bullshit for a while now, 
and I'm quite bored of hitting the delete key...

  I came on to this list after this "Detweiler" person was long gone.  I 
really have no ideas or impressions of this person.  I also have no idea 
who you are, but I am aware that there have been some inconsistancies in 
your behavior and knowledge.

  1)  You claim to be a reent arrival to this list, yet post messages
      that are inflamitory, and refer to topics that traversed the net 
      before your arrival.

  2)  In a recent post, you used the term "detweilering".  Funny, but 
      that term has never been posted in any public messages to you,
      yet was a common term...

  3)  In one message you use the phrase "Whoever this Detweiler person is",
      and then go on in the message to speak about his MO, which you, as 
      a new list member,  wouldn't know...

  4)  In a recent message you made a pun of testical/tentical... Before 
      your time, if you weren't lying about being new...


  Personally, I don't care who you are.  I do think you try to be an 
asshole, and you love getting on people's nerves.

  You have earned this flack.  Enjoy it.

-ck

On Wed, 6 Apr 1994, Chris Knight wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Apr 1994 tmp@netcom.com wrote:
> 
> > !?!?!?!?! detweiler this, detweiler that!!! why does everyone keep
> > calling me `detweiler' when my name is `tmp@netcom.com'?!!
> 
> The above listed information is NOT a name.
You're right, it's an account, just as cknight@crl.com is just an 
account, and you've attached the psueonym "Chris Knight" to it.

> > look, i admit i am posting pseudonymously, but your 
> > detweilerian witchhunt is a good reason why
> 
>   Remember the price of being anonymous... Nobody has to believe a word you 
> say.
Price of being anonymous.  You mean the price of being Obviously 
anonymous.  As opposed to this "Chris Knight" character, who has chosen 
to show himself as to what looks like a real name.  Ever wonder about
Emanuel Goldstein?  That name is as valid as "Chris Knight"

>   Personally, I don't care who you are.  I do think you try to be an 
> asshole, and you love getting on people's nerves.
I'm not going to touch this.  After reading a few of "tmp@netcom"'s 
messages, I aggree that he has been posting what "appear" to be childish 
posts.  But at the same time, there are many other posts here on this 
list with just as much useless information.

Are cypherpunks for anonyminity?  Authentication?  Privacy?  More than one?

 -Matt (Just another alias)
 (panzer@dhp.com)
 "That which can never be enforced should not be prohibited."