Something occurred to me...it probably occurred to others already but I am a stoopid Cypherpunk, don't forget. Anyone think it a TINY bit odd that someone with a fairly mundane complaint about bad computer gear would know to come in on an anonymous remailer? My first thought was that they had gotten burned by a Steve Thompson (maybe the same, maybe not) did a google search and came across Cypherpunks and then tossed in a couple of stinky posts. But it seems a little farfetched to me that such a person would also have bothered (by accident) reading about the anonymous remailers and then use one. So...the complainer must have already been aware of remailers and Mr Thompson's contribution to Cypherpunks. Kind of interesting. -TD

Alright. Time for a little 'fun'. --- "R.W. (Bob) Erickson" wrote:

Tyler Durden wrote:

...

Something occurred to me...it probably occurred to others already but I am a stoopid Cypherpunk, don't forget.

I like the nomenclature of AI: it makes for an interesting tool in the analysis of day-to-day interpersonal relations. Here, for instance, I am in the habit of making a mental note of the above as a frame axiom, one which is intended to influence the state of the fluents that might be said to accompany this message, or which are intended to be assumed by it. So, Mr. Erickson here wishes to assert and emphasise that he is a "stupid cypherpunk", a proposition that may or may not conflict with extant fluents held by readers of Cypherpunks. Or, put another way, it might conflict (or be designed to conflict) with frame axioms that Mr. Erickson knows or suspects to be held by his audience. Without knowing the internal mental state of Cypherpunks' subscription base, and without knowing the frame within which Mr. Erickson is operatiing (either his 'global' frame, or the 'local' frame of convenience that he may have adopted), it is nearly impossible to infer what he or she is intending by writing a statement like "I am a stoopid Cypherpunk" when its banality might suggest to some that it is blatantly insincere. There's really nowhere to take this digression, what with the limited information that is available in context, and so we can only speculate as to what relation Mr. Erickson's possible stoopidity has to the topic at hand, which is (if we are to take the message at face value), that he is concerned with a complaint about a bad eBay sale, which is the responsibility of someone using the name "Steve Thompson", and which was made to Cypherpunks (a known spook-haven[1]), via an anonymous message that appears to have been sent through a cypherpunks remailer.

...

Anyone think it a TINY bit odd that someone with a fairly mundane complaint about bad computer gear would know to come in on an anonymous remailer?

Yes, it is quite odd.

...

My first thought was that they had gotten burned by a Steve Thompson (maybe the same, maybe not) did a google search and came across Cypherpunks and then tossed in a couple of stinky posts.

That condition may satisfy the principle of least hypothesis, which has much to recommend it, but is it really the likely scenario?

...

But it seems a little farfetched to me that such a person would also have bothered (by accident) reading about the anonymous remailers and then use one.

Without a detailed psychological workup on the person who sent the message, the question is largely indeterminate. Perhaps the person making the complaint was coincidentally familiar with anonymous remailers prior to their interaction with eBay.

...

So...the complainer must have already been aware of remailers and Mr Thompson's contribution to Cypherpunks.

I am not sure whether that conclusion is supported by the data available at this time.

...

Kind of interesting.

To someone who is genuinely 'stoopid', perhaps.

...

-TD

Somebody has been experimenting with reputation cracking

Did you just happen to notice? I have informally noted a number of messages in which the authors purport to present information that seeks to damage or modify another's reputation, using a variety of subtle language- and psychology-oriented special effects. Whether one puts stock in the veracity of each instance is probably a matter of personal preference; expediency and convenience in such a busy environment dictates that for practical reasons one simply cannot chase down every half-assed assertion merely to verify its accuracy. In the print and televised media, the flood of information shovelled at the reader (or watcher) is such that distortions, omissions, and outright falsehoods are expected to lodge in the public mind as they accompany a wealth of otherwise useful information that is of some accuracy. The repetition of like falsehoods is carried out over time with the expectation that it will be reinforced. A favoirite example of mine is to be found in one of the two local entertainment weeklies. Recently it was asserted that `reincarnation is the new black' in reference to the intended memetic propogation of the associated frame axioms, and their intended effect on the readers' fluents vulnerable to modification by the memes in question. My tentative analysis of the PR intent prompted me to stop reading the weekly in question as I have no interest in wasting my time with such unimportant drivel. In my case, I feel there are much better things to spend time on -- as interesting as watching the PR spin might be as viewed from a cultural-anthropological perspective. Regards, Steve [1] Choate, et al. ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

No, it was I who laid claim to stoopidity. However, as for...

My tentative analysis of the PR intent prompted me to stop reading the weekly in question as I have no interest in wasting my time with such unimportant drivel. In my case, I feel there are much better things to spend time on -- as interesting as watching the PR spin might be as viewed from a cultural-anthropological perspective.

When the intent of the PR is obviously banal (eg, sell movie tickets) then I agree that analysis is a waste of time. When there's a suspicious pattern of misinformation, the (ultimate) intent of which is unknown, than analysis equals consciously understanding that something shifty is afoot. Otherwise, one's opinions about the slandered change every so slightly, no matter how much we may dismiss such slander on the verbal/conscious level. I consider it no coincidence too that we had that recent little Jew-hater-baiting post from the same remailer. Someone is poking Cypherpunks for the fun of it, or as part of their job description. Remember, tiny impulses at a system's natural frequencies (ie, eigenvalues) will eventually cause that system to dis-integrate. Then again, as none of you are hot chicks I won't necessarily binge-purge if Cypherpunks collapses in a fit of Twilight Zone-ish infighting. -TD

From: Steve Thompson To: cypherpunks@al-qaeda.net Subject: Re: Steve Thompson Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:43:26 -0500 (EST)

Alright. Time for a little 'fun'.

--- "R.W. (Bob) Erickson" wrote:

...

Tyler Durden wrote:

...

Something occurred to me...it probably occurred to others already but I am a stoopid Cypherpunk, don't forget.

I like the nomenclature of AI: it makes for an interesting tool in the analysis of day-to-day interpersonal relations. Here, for instance, I am in the habit of making a mental note of the above as a frame axiom, one which is intended to influence the state of the fluents that might be said to accompany this message, or which are intended to be assumed by it.

So, Mr. Erickson here wishes to assert and emphasise that he is a "stupid cypherpunk", a proposition that may or may not conflict with extant fluents held by readers of Cypherpunks. Or, put another way, it might conflict (or be designed to conflict) with frame axioms that Mr. Erickson knows or suspects to be held by his audience. Without knowing the internal mental state of Cypherpunks' subscription base, and without knowing the frame within which Mr. Erickson is operatiing (either his 'global' frame, or the 'local' frame of convenience that he may have adopted), it is nearly impossible to infer what he or she is intending by writing a statement like "I am a stoopid Cypherpunk" when its banality might suggest to some that it is blatantly insincere.

There's really nowhere to take this digression, what with the limited information that is available in context, and so we can only speculate as to what relation Mr. Erickson's possible stoopidity has to the topic at hand, which is (if we are to take the message at face value), that he is concerned with a complaint about a bad eBay sale, which is the responsibility of someone using the name "Steve Thompson", and which was made to Cypherpunks (a known spook-haven[1]), via an anonymous message that appears to have been sent through a cypherpunks remailer.

...

...

Anyone think it a TINY bit odd that someone with a fairly mundane complaint about bad computer gear would know to come in on an anonymous remailer?

Yes, it is quite odd.

...

...

My first thought was that they had gotten burned by a Steve Thompson (maybe the same, maybe not) did a google search and came across Cypherpunks and then tossed in a couple of stinky posts.

That condition may satisfy the principle of least hypothesis, which has much to recommend it, but is it really the likely scenario?

...

...

But it seems a little farfetched to me that such a person would also have bothered (by accident) reading about the anonymous remailers and then use one.

Without a detailed psychological workup on the person who sent the message, the question is largely indeterminate. Perhaps the person making the complaint was coincidentally familiar with anonymous remailers prior to their interaction with eBay.

...

...

So...the complainer must have already been aware of remailers and Mr Thompson's contribution to Cypherpunks.

I am not sure whether that conclusion is supported by the data available at this time.

...

...

Kind of interesting.

To someone who is genuinely 'stoopid', perhaps.

...

...

-TD

Somebody has been experimenting with reputation cracking

Did you just happen to notice?

I have informally noted a number of messages in which the authors purport to present information that seeks to damage or modify another's reputation, using a variety of subtle language- and psychology-oriented special effects. Whether one puts stock in the veracity of each instance is probably a matter of personal preference; expediency and convenience in such a busy environment dictates that for practical reasons one simply cannot chase down every half-assed assertion merely to verify its accuracy.

In the print and televised media, the flood of information shovelled at the reader (or watcher) is such that distortions, omissions, and outright falsehoods are expected to lodge in the public mind as they accompany a wealth of otherwise useful information that is of some accuracy. The repetition of like falsehoods is carried out over time with the expectation that it will be reinforced.

A favoirite example of mine is to be found in one of the two local entertainment weeklies. Recently it was asserted that `reincarnation is the new black' in reference to the intended memetic propogation of the associated frame axioms, and their intended effect on the readers' fluents vulnerable to modification by the memes in question. My tentative analysis of the PR intent prompted me to stop reading the weekly in question as I have no interest in wasting my time with such unimportant drivel. In my case, I feel there are much better things to spend time on -- as interesting as watching the PR spin might be as viewed from a cultural-anthropological perspective.

Regards,

Steve

[1] Choate, et al.

______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca