At 08:45 PM 2/12/96 -0800, Bruce Baugh wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
ANNOUNCING: THE SECOND QUASI-MONTHLY PORTLAND CYPHERPUNKS SOIREE AND KEY-SIGNING
I really hate to add this particular paragraph (and it isn't in the version that'll get posted to newsgroups), but...one person won't be welcome. Jim Bell's conduct at the last meeting and on the list are such as to make it quite clear that I don't want him in my home.
Bullshit, Bruce! My "conduct" at the last meeting was quite acceptable (nobody else complained, BTW) ; the source of the entire dispute that ensued was completely the irresponsible conduct of Alan Olsen in flaming me on the national cypherpunks list, and my only "crime" was objecting to his flames. I was, quite frankly, shocked that Alan Olsen would behave as badly AFTER the meeting as he did. NOTHING that happened AT THE MEETING prepared me for his later abuse. It turns out, however, that he later incriminated himself by admitting to sending some anonymous flames on Cypherpunks to me; if anything you should be objecting to HIS behavior for this. The fact that you are not is QUITE REVEALING. (Clearly, Olsen was massively (and, at least on the record, at that time, secretly) strongly objecting to my political philosophy and ideas LONG BEFORE the meeting, yet he didn't have the guts to confront me before the meeting.) Even you apparently admit this to be true, by virtue of remembering (now!) to carefully point out that material discussed at the meeting is "fair game" for future discussion on lists. You're obviously trying to cover Olsen's ass on this matter by retroactively making it look like what Olsen did was somehow "acceptable". For the record, I object: Kow-towing to a few people by prohibiting cameras, yet flaming others (anonymously, no less!) for non-hostile commentary made at the first meeting makes Olsen look terrible, and defending him makes you look pretty bad. Olsen's setting up a local Cypherpunks area, adding my name to the list, then removing my name when things got a bit too embarrassing is clearly his standard (mis)behavior; you appear to be adopting his policies and practices. If you REALLY were well meaning, you would not tried to flaunt your rejection of me in a public message; you would have kept that part private. What you want to be able to do is to pretend that it is I who was at fault for Olsen's transgressions; you don't know newer attendees to hear both sides of the story. How does it feel to be a sleazy character, Bruce? Jim Bell Klaatu Burada Nikto