PSEUDOSPOOFING

[L. Detweiler]

I'm absolutely *horrified* and *nauseated* that our eminent list
moderator E.H. has come out in total support of what I have been
calling `spoofing' or using pseudo-real addresses to post to the list. 

(It isn't `really' spoofing in the exact sense because as I noted there
has only been an *implicit assumption* by all of us here that opinions
from unique addresses were themselves unique. so, lets call it)

PSEUDOSPOOFING

the activity of misleading people into thinking that an identity is
unique when it really isn't! i.e. posting behind `real' addresses not
specifically noted as anonymous!

I consider pseudospoofing a *detestable* and *reprehensible* activity
if it exists. Am I the only one who finds this absolutely *repulsive*
and *abhorrent*? How long has this been going on? who has been doing
it? am I the first to suspect it is happening? how many debates have
been affected? how many people have been *harassed* or *intimidated* or
*burned* to a *crisp* by pseudospoofers? is this going on in *private
email* too? how many debates have been skewed? how many people here
DON'T EXIST? Are the other founders T.C.May and J.Gilmore in favor of
this too? how much have you guys been doing this? is this really part
of the cypherpunk agenda? who here supports this, anyway? does this
have anything to do with the bizarre conspiracy theories posts of
`S.Boxx'?! is this why `everyone' is opposed to a newsgroup or other
change in the `status quo'?! Is this why *I* get *flamed* so much? is
this polluting other mailing lists?!

E.H.
>The claim that a person should have only one pseudonym per forum
>indicates profound misunderstanding.  If someone wants to have
>multiple cryptographically protected pseudonyms, they will be able to;
>that is one of the main goals of cypherpunks software.

IMHO, this itself represents a `profound misunderstanding' under what
actually constitutes an OPEN FORUM. If we are merely conducting some
depraved experiment on the psychology of pseudonymity and
pseudospoofing on unwilling participants, please say so! I for one
never saw *that* announcement when I signed up! calling
`pseudospoofing' `one of the `main goals' of cypherpunks software'
sounds *criminal* to me. Or maybe I'm missing the point! I guess this
is what anarchy really *is* all about!

* * *

speaking of OPEN FORUMS, `Jamie Dinkelacker' <Jamie at netcom.com> objects
to my other proposals for reputation tracking statistics:

>>
>>1) how long they have been on the list in days, 0 if none at all
>>2) how many postings they have posted here
>>3) maybe a posting/age ratio -- some people seem to be very sensitive
>>or tune out people with a high one.
>>4) another idea: tracking the number of responses a given poster has,
>>average, per original post, measured by `re: [x]' subject tracking.
>>
>
>Each of these suggestions call for data that may contribute to identifying
>individuals, tracking their behavior or providing information useful to
>decypher some messages. This has a very NSA feel to it. 

A very ``NSA FEEL''?! all of these statistics could be generated by
*anyone* who subscribes to the list! is this an OPEN FORUM or not?! How
could *anyone* object to anything so innocuous? 

A *true* forum would be *representative*. For example, I already have
the impression that no one here supports my suggestions whatsoever on
list modifications & protocol  from E.H.'s comments and
jamie at netcom.com. Now, humor me, and take the hypothetical situation
that these are the same person! how can this be a `forum' if an opinion
is not *representative*? what if a single person just `ganged up' on
someone they didn't like by overwhelming them with pseudospoofs? what
if there was *truly* support for some project but a pseudospoofer
ganged up on the proponents and clobbered them with flames? does this
sound anything like what has happened on this list in the past? doesn't
it throw every `conversation' on this list into spectacularly
*grotesque* doubt? wouldn't that be a lot like intimidation at best and
*extortion* at worst? would it look like a `clique'? what if this was
happening *routinely*? what if people were being *influenced* by what
they perceived was the *majority opinion* or the *views of their peers*
that were really nothing but DECEPTION AND LIES? what if it was
*thwarting progress*? I would consider this nothing but TREACHERY and
HIGH TREASON. is all this  really one of the `main goals' of the
cypherpunk agenda? if so, SIGN ME OFF.

Regardless of whether anyone believes in democracy (a `lot' of people
here said they didn't a while ago, but now I have my doubts!) the idea
of `one man one vote' is SACRED. it means in essence, one man shall not
have UNFAIR INFLUENCE. anything less is just the `Golden Rule: He who
Has the Most Gold Makes the Rules'. or, `you can be here as long as I
always have more *power* than you do and you don't complain!' it is
*anti egaltarian*. it is a recipe for anarchy, dischord and chaos. Or
perhaps I'm MISSING THE POINT?! maybe that's what somebody *wants*. is
*this* what the Cypherpunks really stand for? UNFAIR INFLUENCE. ABUSE
OF POWER. MANIPULATION. DECEIT. TREACHERY. EXPLOITATION. SECRET CONSPIRACIES.

p.s. if anyone doesn't hear from me for awhile, assume I've been
`liquidated' and this isn't really an `open forum' ...