pseudonyms and such

I think it's rather odd to find cypherpunks basically flaming someone 
because they choose to use a pseudonym instead of their real name. 
Or presuming guilt of being Detweiler because of the choice to use the
pseudonym.  Isn't the right to hide one's official on-your-passport
identity something that we all supposedly support?  Seems kind of contrary
to this goal to go making anyone who exercises this right feel unwelcome
on the list.  
 
I'm sure if someone had mailed this sue person, and politey explained why they
felt her posts to be inappropriate, she would have changed her behavior.
And if she didn't, _then_ you could try to make her feel as unwelcome as
possible. Sure, this plan of action means that Detweiler-spoofs are
a bit more effective, and detweiler identities will take a bit longer to
be "outed".  And preventing the clipper chip from becoming a standard means that
drug dealers will have a bit of an easier time, especially if we succeed
in making PGP standard. Or terrorists. Such is the cost of being fair. 
 
I think it's awfully hypocritical to judge this pseudonomous person
harshly merely because of her pseudonimity, or because that 
pseudonimity makes you suspect she's really detweiler.

>   I think it's rather odd to find cypherpunks basically flaming someone 
>   because they choose to use a pseudonym instead of their real name. 
>   Or presuming guilt of being Detweiler because of the choice to use the
>   pseudonym.  Isn't the right to hide one's official on-your-passport
>   identity something that we all supposedly support?  Seems kind of contrary
>   to this goal to go making anyone who exercises this right feel unwelcome
>   on the list.  

finger is generally enabled at netcom. interestingly, fingering nym@netcom
causes a segmentation fault. .plan a link to something wierd maybe?

>   I think it's awfully hypocritical to judge this pseudonomous person
>   harshly merely because of her pseudonimity, or because that 
>   pseudonimity makes you suspect she's really detweiler. 

well, she seems to be an idiot which is usually enough for me.

josh

C'punks,

On Mon, 18 Jul 1994, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:

> I think it's rather odd to find cypherpunks basically flaming someone 
> because they choose to use a pseudonym instead of their real name. 
> Or presuming guilt of being Detweiler because of the choice to use the
> pseudonym.
> . . . 
> I think it's awfully hypocritical to judge this pseudonomous person
> harshly merely because of her pseudonimity, or because that 
> pseudonimity makes you suspect she's really detweiler. 

It looks as though Jonathan is assuming facts not in evidence.  I don't 
recall ANY posts that judged "this pseudonomous person harshly merely 
because of her [sic] pseudonimity," or otherwise (emphasis added).
^^^^^^^
I think it would behoove us to eschew knee-jerk reactions in favor of 
careful reading and critical thinking.


 S a n d y

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Jonathan Rochkind writes:

> I think it's awfully hypocritical to judge this pseudonomous person
> harshly merely because of her pseudonimity, or because that 
> pseudonimity makes you suspect she's really detweiler. 

Detweiler is judged harshly because of his poor behavior, not because
he uses pseudonyms. He would be flamed even more vigorously, I predict,
if he were to reappear with his real name. The pseudonymity does not
make him suspect, the message content does. His plaintive "you all suck -
why are you mean to me - I hate you - can't we be friends? - I'm leaving,
you're awful - maybe I'll stay - I'm just a newbie, be nice to me -
you all suck" whining is classic Detweiler; the recent message to Perry
"accidentally" forwarded to the list takes me back to last summer in a
swoon of deja vu. 

I can't tell whether Xenon or Detweiler wins the prize for most frequently
announcing their final, irrevocable, non-negotiable departure from the
Cypherpunks list and all of its arrogant maniac-losers who don't understand
how things *REALLY ARE*, followed by a re-emergence within a month or two.
Does anyone out there have an accurate count?


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.5

iQCVAgUBLirign3YhjZY3fMNAQF8EQP9FyT9Z+iAe+8yf181WJGQktnnJk5TK/8e
wojOM8EMTm8jCRYs9b7EdTFfC5uSHRnkgoWI5/OcvcRb2Kp2Lv2gFVRJbl4ubwLV
m3/BoMKTBLtOwFvyZ42icihVwHQqN7GJ1EY70xHhYtHzfVAuuxoV1YHbwXLKLZyj
xrdwU1YwamA=
=57C5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----