`ad hominem' ad nauseam

I'd like to respond to a few introspective cypherpunkesque notes by P. Farrell and T.C. May. I've considered the general attitudes toward e.g. Denning and Sternlight seriously, particularly my own. I freely admit to banging out scathing verbiage on behalf of both here and elsewhere and critical reactions both publicly and privately. First, a general observation. It strikes me that many have not recognized the true meaning of `ad hominem' in their casual and careless use of it (perhaps even it is the only Latin term known to some tossing it about because of its frequent appearance in cyberspatial flame wars). I think it has taken a new meaning on the net to be something like `making someone look like a fool'. By my view, it means *calling* someone a fool completely without justification (e.g. attacking irrelevent aspects of their reputation). However, devastating their flimsy arguments and false beliefs to the point they *look* like a fool is not an ad hominem attack. Perhaps I will be accused of splitting fibers but I think the distinction is transparent. P.F.:

I'm more than a little concerned about the vicious personal attacks that this list makes on folks that have strongly held beliefs that disagree with some (or all) of the beliefs of hot headed posters to cypherpunks. I thought this was a technical mailing list, that dabbled in politics only as necessary. I see no justification for the personal attacks, especially on 3rd parties that do not read this list. These uncalled for attacks will not convince anyone on the list, and do not become the poster.

First, I will not argue that ad hominem or vicious attacks are warranted. However, they are there because they are *motivated* by tangible reasons that you fail to address. Let's look at each case: [D. Denning]

She just happens to support a view that she strongly believes in. The fact that I think her side is dead wrong does not make her an idiot. Name calling accomplishes nothing but does hurt the signal to noise ratio of this list.

First, it is not clear why Denning doggedly pursues the key escrow scheme and advocation of Clipper, and she has never expressed any conceivable reason. Your invention of `strong belief' is nothing but pure speculation and in the glaring lack of any statements on the subject by her, not any superior in plausibility than attributions of black machinations by others. Yet, on the other hand, virtually everyone who is (admittedly) equally dogmatically opposed to Clipper supplies a continuous torrent of personal motivations, anecdotes, and background for their characteristic position and drive. D. Denning once volunteered some weak statistics on wiretapping a long time ago but has long since abandoned them. Others suggested they showed to the contrary that wiretapping did not have a socially significant effect despite severe compromises and sacrifices to institute it.

Even more annoying are the attacks on Jim Bidzos. He is trying to make a buck, which was legal last time I looked. And on many issues, he is far more in our camp than against us. He at least likes strong cryptography, and his disputable patents expire in a relatively short time. He has agreed to allow a PGP-compatible program to use RSA without cost, providing the legal version that many U.S. users would like to see.

Again, you are postulating hypothetical motivations. You supply no direct evidence for your claims whatsoever, despite very disturbing evidence to the contrary (PGP hassling, DSA scheming, patent-mongering, laywer-breeding, etc.). As for the PGP case you cite, why has it taken years for him to reverse the companies well-known belligerence despite overtures by PRZ? Probably because of strong public pressure and PR opportunism, IMHO. I don't claim my opinion is correct, but I do claim that it is most plausible in light of all the data. [T.M.]

What really bothers me is the type of criticism, which I also tend to call "ad hominem" (but which rhetoriticians may have a special name for), in which people impute _motives_ to others. Thus, we see seemingly endless comments about the motives of Denning, of Bidzos, of Sternlight, and of others. [...] While I think Dorothy Denning is, for various reasons, hopelessly in the camp of the NSA and FBI, I see nothing to be gained by demonizing her.

This was a bit confusing to me to hear Mr. May first criticize imputing motives, and then to say that `Denning is for various reasons hopelessly in the camp of the NSA and FBI'. What are her various reasons for her bizarre lone intransigence? The whole *point* is that these reasons are unclear, and most of the `endless comments about the motives' by others are actually encouraging bait for those parties to publicly `come clean' with their associations and affiliations. These people's actions are completely baffling from our own point of view and troubling in light of other hazy but discernable ulterior trend-patterns. What is their version of reality? Particularly with Denning and Bidzos their public comments on their motivations, despite the sheer strangeness of it all, are essentially nonexistent. I must admit a bit of frustration and annoyance (to say the least) with T.C. May's habitual tendency to don rosy glasses in viewing the actions of Denning and Bidzos and others (speaking in spineless psychoanalytic babble like `cognitive dissonance'), seemingly reflecting a continual forebearance and willingness to grant them `the benefit of the doubt' despite increasingly sinister evidence of motives to the contrary. Denning, in particular, has explicitly claimed no knowledge of Clipper despite her uncannily prescient proposals (she was the *first* to propose the `split key' idea on sci.crypt in an infamous `Copper Balloon' message). Bidzos appears to me to be playing different cyberpunks against each other and making lame statements such as that the DSS arrangement is completely sensible and rational despite the historical convolutions preceding it. We are dealing with people who are failing to level with us at best and tricking and deceiving us at worst, and the `demonizing' represents our desperation. To the contrary, it is attribution of their motives to `socializing' and `support' from their `peer group' that dangerously trivializes, underestimates, misjudges them. [`demonizing']

... weakens our cause, for two reasons. First, it cuts off dialog with those we disagree with. Second, we tend to underestimate people we have written off as stooges or dunces.

As the sci.crypt melee you valiantly instigated dramatically proves, dialogue has so far been completely useless. Despite the most critical reception possible to the idea of key escrow about 6 months before the release of Clipper, no modification of the plan was apparent. D. Denning may as well be a brick wall when it comes to rational consideration of opposing viewpoints on the subject (which she conveniently delegates to others to explore). She simply will not budge from her basic premise that key-escrow is wholly desirable and necessary. In short, at present we have an impasse, not `dialogue'. Furthermore, it is precisely in scathingly criticizing opponents that we encourage others *not* to underestimate these people and their dangerous ideas. That is the point: all of Denning, Bidzos, and Sternlight are too intelligent to write of as `stooges or dunces' and something more `intentional' and `systematic' is more likely. That is what is so alarming.

... we ought not to use cheap shots and cheap rhetorical tricks (one I hate especially is the "sound effect" jab, the "" sort of comment inserted into postings ...

While I've never done this, it is futile for you to request otherwise. This is one of the most colorful aspects of Usenet. Nothing is sacred in cyberspace. Professional academicians will get ruthlessly ridiculed or humiliated like anyone else if they doggedly advocate feeble ideas through deluded arguments. They are just another email address and bursting bit pattern in the ultimate egaltarianocracy. Who can escape or transcend the glare of multitudinous eyes glued on a computer screen?