Militias, reputation capital, unfounded rumor-mongering, and the DNS

Anatomy of a paranoid troll:

http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/fight-censorship/dl?thread=FBI+monitoring+Freemen+FTP+sites,+snooping+on+%22patriot%22+email?&after=2275&type=short

Someone sent a message to Declan alleging that the FBI, with the
cooperation of ISPs, was reading/disrupting/censoring the email of people
interested in "patriot"  movements. Declan said hmm, I can see the FBI
doing that, and forwarded the message to fight-censorship. I pointed out
that the story was complete bullshit, which is easily verified (yvv.com's
incompetence in managing their DNS affects all users, including
postmaster@yvv.com, not just the paranoid), but evidently my reputation
capital on the moderated fight-censorship list is so low that instead of
my objections, subscribers to the fight-censorship list got to read
another, more paranoid rant. 

I do not expect this story to die, even though it's completely false --
it's too good. The meme in the subject line is awfully strong, lots of
people won't take the time to read more than the title, and who really
listens to a FUCKING STATIST anyway. 

Truth is indeed stranger than fiction, but seldom in the way you think.

-rich

Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 24-Apr-96 Militias, reputation
capita.. by Rich Graves@networking.s 
> I do not expect this story to die, even though it's completely false --
> it's too good. The meme in the subject line is awfully strong, lots of
> people won't take the time to read more than the title, and who really
> listens to a FUCKING STATIST anyway. 

Wow. Rich has surprised me by demonstrating that even he can be
insightful -- for a FUCKING STATIST!

-Declan

On Wed, 24 Apr 1996, Declan B. McCullagh wrote:

> Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 24-Apr-96 Militias, reputation
> capita.. by Rich Graves@networking.s 
> > I do not expect this story to die, even though it's completely false --
> > it's too good. The meme in the subject line is awfully strong, lots of
> > people won't take the time to read more than the title, and who really
> > listens to a FUCKING STATIST anyway. 
> 
> Wow. Rich has surprised me by demonstrating that even he can be
> insightful -- for a FUCKING STATIST!

I could read your answer three ways. Which is it?

1. I'm right, and you're making light of our public disagreement. Cool. As
   I keep telling you, I'm 95% behind 95% of what you're doing, and I hate
   to disagree publicly.

2. I'm right, but you don't care, because the propaganda advantage of
   leaving the idea of the FBI's snooping private email is good for the
   cause. Not cool -- you really don't strike me as a propagandist.

3. You're trying to say that I'm wrong, or you're saying, "I know you are,
   but what am I?" Inconclusive.

-rich