Adam Back wrote:

Bill Stewart <stewarts@ix.netcom.com> writes:

...

At 11:13 PM 5/20/97 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:

...

On Tue, May 20, 1997 at 04:23:10PM +0000, Attila T. Hun wrote: [rant deleted - bill] Speaking of power corrupting, notice how the power to speak anonymously has destroyed this poor souls brain.

When Attila T. Hun posts to the list, I can tell you how many hours, days and minutes it has been since his last post. I know when I see his name on a post that he has something to say. Perhaps the most telling comment I have heard about him was when a fellow cypherpunk said about Attila, "When he replies to one of my posts I never know if he's going to kiss me or rip me a new asshole. He doesn't respond to my _reputation capital_ or my perceived net persona--he responds to what I express in my posting." I don't have a problem with the opinions or points of view that Kent expresses on the cypherpunks list, but I do have a problem with the fact that his posts seem to reflect a pre-programmed world-view, with little thought given to the actual content and concepts expressed by those he is replying to. I find Kent's posts to be much like the ASCII art that is posted to the list--each post is slightly different, but predictable. The aspersions that Kent casts on those such as Attila and Tim serve no purpose other than to accentuate the fact that he is envious of their propensity for dealing on a real-world level with the concepts he addresses from an intellectual ivory tower.

...

Attila's not anonymous - he's a regular poster, and has been for long enough to build up some reputation around his penname.

There are people I have known for years--their _real_ name, where they live, went to school, the annual average rainfall in their hometown, etc.--but I know very little about who they really are-- how they think, what they believe, etc. I know a lot more about Attila T. Hun. His posts reflect who he is, where he's been, what he's done, and his perceptions about himself and the world around him. His posts reflect his persona. Kent's posts reflect, in my opinion, what he has "learned to believe." When I read Kent's posts, I don't feel like I learn who he is, but rather, I learn the "position" that he is taking on this or that point. Real name/anonymity aside, I see Attila as real and Kent as a shadowy figure. My advice to Kent would be, "If you're going to be an asshole, at least be a _real_ asshole." I enjoy the exchange of differing viewpoints (and genuine conflicts) on the cypherpunks list, because it gives me food for thought about positions and viewpoints that I have dichotimous feelings about, but I have little use for lukewarm, passive-aggressive exchanges. (I prefer the pissing contests between raving maniacs.)

In short I believe you picked on the wrong guy if you considered Attila an example of someone with lots to say when hiding behind strong anonymity.

I have used a variety of "names" as a writer, musician and as a fugitive from injustice. Whenever I looked in the mirror, however, I always saw the same face. And no matter what "persona" I am using, I find that I feel most like "myself" when I speak and act honestly, no matter whether my stance is homeostatic or dichotymous. I have done traffic/personality/pseudonym analysis on the list for years and have uncovered a plethora of anonymous personas. Some use anonymity to "step out of" their regular list persona. Some use it to address issues that could not deal with under their regular persona because of a need to protect their perceived public/social image. Some use anonymity because of personal or business conflicts that could be used against them by those who feel threatened by honesty. Others use anonymity because it is fun to play "hide and seek" with list members who know them well enough to suspect who they _really_ are. I first encountered the "TruthMonger" persona in 1989 and have followed its evolution since that time. The better I got at tracking the various entities assuming the TruthMonger persona, the more I realized that those who claim to "know" or "expose" who a particular TruthMonger _really_ is are wrong about 90% of the time. The reason for this is simple. Once we form an "opinion" of _who_ somebody is and _what_they_ believe_, and _who_they_are_, then we "interpret" what they have to say in their posts in accordance with our learned perception of them. Accordingly, we fail to see the naturally occuring dichotomys and inconsistencies that are inherent in living, learning and adapting to the evolution of thought which comes with an expanding mental and emotional paridigm. When the same person posts anonymously, then those who know them and have an "opinion" of who they are and what they think can no longer categorize their post automatically and interpret it in the "usual" manner. Anonymity forces the reader to consider the content that is contained in the post, rather than automatically consigning it to the proper "box" according to the established persona of a regular poster. Many people are not comfortable with not being able to "assign" an anonymous persona with the author's appropriate mental "box" so they attribute this or that post with this or that list member and respond accordingly. I am posting this anonymously. Who am I? I am the person who believes what I have written here and who doesn't want what I am expressing to be classified according to what I wrote yesterday. I am: TruthMonger # -96