I'm sure some clever participant at DCSB will do a pile of homework before coming to my talk and put it all together. So be it. If he or she is polite, they might chide me in private a bit, but not blather all over the list just to show how very clever they were. As long as they enjoy the talk, I'm not overly concerned.
or then again, maybe they'll sell it to BLACKNET!! <g> actually Unicorn, eventually voice analysis software may evolve to the point that someone could match people based on their voices to public speech databases, and you could be nailed through your phone conversations. hmmmm, have you ever had a conversation with someone who might have been taping you for amusement? (heh. you write a long, self-indulgent letter about the extremes you have gone to keep your ID secret, and pretend to be blase' & nonchalant if someone discovers it? I think I can see through that smokescreen.) actually, I heard this interesting rumor that Unicorn threatened to sue someone who "defamed" his pseudonym. quite an amusing story if true, given his last essay that talks about how he created the pseudonym in the first place to avoid exactly what it accomplishes, i.e. dissociating his professional identity from the "lunatic anarchist" writhing beneath the surface. actually, there are some amusing things going on here with cpunk "rules." are cpunks in favor of pseudonyms or not? one famous cpunk madman wrote under a pseudonym to the list, and many cypherpunk went to great lengths to try to derive his identity. is this a case of respecting pseudonyms? or is it more a case of the double standard at best, hypocrisy at worst, "respect my pseudonyms, but yours are fair game"? one noted proponent of pseudonymity, whom we will merely call "Timmy", regularly takes great glee in misattributing my own posts to some deranged crackpot running loose in cyberspace. is this a case of respecting my identity? suppose I really was this person-- shouldn't Timmy's position be one of respect for my use of a pseudonym? of course he is too immature and feebleminded to even consider this discrepancy in his philosophy. cpunks are not known for having coherent philosophies that answer simple questions of actions in the face of quandaries. the basic cpunk philosophy, as amply illustrated by 2/3 of its founders, is "look out for #1 only, and don't waste time on something as inane as selfless public service or leadership"