Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM <dlv@bwalk.dm.com> wrote:
LOGOS <logos@c2.net> writes:
Sovereign collegues,
You already sound like a jerk.
Perhaps you should suspend judgment until you have the opportunity to evaluate the content of my posts. What are you antagonistic to the use of honorifics?
I am Logos. I have adopted this pseudonym to conceal my 'true name'. I want the ideas which I shall be espousing to stand or fall on their own merits and not on the basis of biases that my name, sex, ethnicity, etc. might otherwise
sexual preferences...
Yes, that and other catagorizations which are irrelevant to the primary focus of this list.
That's right. You lack the decorum to spell either my first name or my last name correctly.
'Decorum' has to do with polite behaviour. While I was certainly remiss in my hasty spelling of your name, it was not intentional, therefore not a lack of decorum. I do apologize for my negligence. I shall endeavor to spell you name correctly in the future.
"Cypher punks" are a gang of uncouth juveniles
I'm not sure I understand the relevance of this comment. Was it made in response to my error in spelling? In any case, it is a good example of the informal logical fallacy of 'over generalization'. As I understand it, there are circa 1000 people subscribed to Cypherpunks. To paint an entire group with such a characterization is both illogical and unfair. I also question your use of the word 'uncouth'. I have seen no posts on Cypherpunks that were any more 'uncultured; crude; or boorish' than those posted by you. I am not saying that uncouth posts have not been made by others, but it is disingenuous for one to judge others by a standard that one does not apply to one's self.
What logic? "Cypher punks" such as Paul Bradley are incapable of discussing a technical topic (such as Don Wood's IPG proposal) without putting "(spit)" after Don's name
I could be wrong, but I believe this was done as an intentional parody of your own similar posts. If it is illogical for Paul Bradley to do this, does it not follow that is was illogical when you did it as well? It is obvious to me that you are an intelligent person. I am concerned, however, with your apparent intellectual dishonesty. It would appear that you know perfectly well that your posts serve no purpose in the cause of promoting privacy through the use of cryptography. It is hard to draw any other conclusion then that you are intentionally being provocative for the purpose of disrupting the work of this list. If this is not so, I apologize, but how else can we judge your actions? Please step outside of yourself for a moment and give us an honest self-assessment of your behavior and the motives behind it. Respectfully yours, Logos out