Many people appear to have me confused with `S.Boxx'. I assure you, we are two unique identities. Anyway, this all appears to have resulted partly from H.Finney's posting a while back asking for help in relieving me of my `mental anguish' and `mental suffering' as a `personal favor' to bring me `piece of mind.'
Larry believes that people have been communicating with him in private mail under multiple identities in order to confuse and mislead him. Specifically, he has suggested that Jamie Dinkelacker is a pseudonym employed by Tim May. I gather that he has received email from both names. He also suggests that others have employed these practices.
I'm not really sure where Mr. Finney got this impression -- perhaps from private mail we traded. I definitely had some doubts about the `Dinkelacker matter', partly in consideration of the (admittedly bizarre) `S.Boxx' postings, as I stated publicly in response to his post. But I (L. Detweiler!) haven't ever publicly accused Mr. Dinkelacker of being anyone other than Mr. Dinkelacker, that I remember! Anyway, an eminent cypherpunk was kind enough to clear up this misunderstanding to me in email. I asked him to post to the list or to sci.crypt, but to my knowledge it has not made it to either place so far. Since this is an important matter and may have caused some other cypherpunks some confusion, here is the *unequivocal* assurance that Dinkelacker exists independent of T.C.May, and that the latter has never posted under the identity of the former! (esp. given the eminent reputation of this kind soul who has reassured me.) I really appreciate this effort to help me in my own doubts, but also let me assure everyone that (contrary to the person's suggestions) I am not `clinging to a paranoid fantasy, adding layers of elaboration, and as more evidence comes forward just adding layers upon layers,' `afraid of the truth', `afraid to face the possibility you are wrong' As far as all this pseudospoofing, it is something I would rather not worry about, and I'm very hopeful that J. Helsingius will start a new list where it is at least discouraged. I would like to see a new taboo against it arise with the strength of those currently against network censorship. In some quarters of the internet, the taboo against pseudospoofing is actually there. Unfortunately, quite the opposite is the case here, and it has indeed caused me some unpleasant and unsettling doubts I would not even wish on my enemies. A new list would certainly solve a lot of problems!
I have to say that it's sad to see you screwing yourself up like this. I hope you can get straight.
I really appreciate this person's concern and compassion, but even if Mr. Dinkelacker was a snake of Medusa or a tentacle of a monster, I certainly would not waste much time in `screwing myself up' over it. As for my `reluctance to call Mr. May or Mr. Dinkelacker yourself' is not due less to blind obstinacy than blase disinterist! (Although I'm not sure how this person knew I hadn't called either -- but that's just my paranoia speaking! <g>) Actually, Mr. May sent me mail stating that the assertion that he had ever posted under J. Dinkelacker, jamie@netcom.com, was `too bizarre to be believed', and I believe him. I wasn't quite sure what he meant about his actual pseudospoofing experience, though, and that's not really my business to comment on (I asked him to post an unequivocal statement to the list, beyond his initial satire, given the importance of the matter, which I have apparently missed). (following slightly edited to preserve anonymity) ===cut=here=== Date: Tue, 26 Oct 93 09:49:42 PDT From: [...] To: ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu Subject: Dinkelacker Lance - For what it's worth, I called Jamie Dinkelacker on the phone yesterday. He seemed to be a real person. I had met Tim May a year or two ago (and BTW, Tim looks just like his picture in Wired), and Dinkelacker 's voice seemed different from Tim's. Tim had a deep voice (he's a big guy) while Dinkelacker's was higher pitched. We talked for about twenty minutes, and I was convinced that he was who he claimed. He is the former VP of Marketing for AMix, the American Information Exchange, a spin-off from Autodesk (the CAD company) which I think went out of business last year (maybe they're still around). You might be able to find some articles about AMiX from last year or the year before and they might mention him. Dinkelacker is active in nanotechnology circles there in the Bay area. That is how he met Tim. He has never been to a CP meeting. He mentioned a couple of people who knew them both: Nick Szabo, who confirmed this to me in email, and also Max More, whom I know personally. Max is a grad student at USC, where my [...] goes to school. He is the founder of thee Extropian movement, and publishes a twice-yearly journal called Extropy. Max is a really nice guy, soft-spoken and friendly. He is originally from Ireland. If you'd like his phone number, let me know. This is about all I can offer you in terms of evidence for Dinkelacker's independent existence. It's up to you now. You can cling to this paranoid fantasy, adding layers of elaboration, saying that I must be a false identity, Nick must be, this Max More must be (but then, who publishes Extropy? You can get back issues going back three years!), and as more evidence comes forward you just add layers upon layers. Or you can say to yourself, do I really have any basis for believing that people are trying to mislead me in this way? Who is my best candidate for being a fake persona? Let's investigate that one in detail. Let's face the truth. If you're afraid of the truth, you're never going to find your way out of fantasy. Your reluctance to call Tim May and Jamie Dinkelacker directly suggests to me that you don't really want to face the possibility that you are wrong. That's your decision to make, but I have to say that it's sad to see you screwing yourself up like this. I hope you can get straight.