Who is T.C.May?

[L. Detweiler]

Hello, I recently saw Mr. May's delightful `Who is L.Detweiler' post. I
am going to address this posting in utmost seriousness. It contains
very many inaccuracies and distortions that I simply cannot let stand.

Mr. May and all other cypherpunks have the most self-centered,
egotistical view of the universe of anyone. Mr. May, his associates,
and his sycophantic followers distort the truth so frequently that they
eventually begin to believe their own lies. The pattern of taking
credit for other's hard earned accomplishments, starting with
Zimmermann's PGP and even in the case of my `insanity' (the Big Mac
term for anything I write, no matter how lucid), persists forever.

First, reports of my insanity are greatly exaggerated. They seemed to
have originated with P.Metzger. At first I was just writing `rants' and
these became labelled as `insane' as a simple progression in terms that
paralleled the Cypherpunk desperation at my tenacity.

Mr. May starts out with an amusing account of my tenure on the
Cypherpunks list, apparently believing that was the beginning of my
existence. For cypherpunks, who live in their complex inbred
environment in cyberspace, it is.

>He often got angry with
>someone and slipped into insulting them as being duplicitous,
>malicious, etc., instead of merely ascribing their different opinions
>as being just that. 

I think it is clear to anyone who has posted on the list for some time
that it is filled with two classes of people: the people who attend CA
meetings and grovel at the feet of the High Leaders, Gilmore, Hughes,
and May. And there are the independent thinkers who occasionally agree
but also call the leaders Stupid when they post messages that imply
stellar stupidity or hypocrisy (e.g., `Abandon PGP!' `Change the
Cypherpunk Name to Something Less Subversive'!). And we have the
Wannabes from around the world, people like D.Barnes (TX) and Nate
Sammons (CO) who look up to their Gods in reverent awe and hope to be
Big Macs themselves one day.

In short, the list has been intensely political, laden and smacked with
complex secret and hidden loyalties, from the beginning. Anyone who
flames a leader for stupidity or hypocrisy, based on nothing other than
their actual posts, is considered a `frustrated wannabe'. Everyone here
fits into some particular caste. (The Cypherpunks do exist in a sort of
mysterious balance with some outsiders, but usually there is only
enmity in the case of irreverence on the outsider's part and approval
if there is glorification and idolatry.)

Mr. May makes long reference to my postings on the Cypherpunks list,
characterizing them all as a sort of bag of ad hominem insults and
rants. I stand by everything I have ever posted to the Cypherpunks
list, contrary to T.C.May, who is deathly terrified that anyone outside
his little inbred fiefdom should stumble on his rants about how all Law
Enforcement and Governments are inherently Evil, how Pornography is
Liberating, etc. These are just the rants that he says *publicly*.
Behind the scenes all three leaders, Gilmore, May, and Hughes, promote
much more subversive ideology and religion to their cult of fanatic
followers. `Lies are Liberating' etc. The media has been infected with
their distortions of their agenda of hiding criminal activities such as
tax evasion, black marketeering, money laundering, and the overthrow of
governments under the guise of `privacy for the masses' and `the
cryptographic revolution'.

I have forever attempted to start projects on the Cypherpunks list, but
found lukewarm interest and searing enmity from the CA Clique. One
project was the whistleblowing newsgroup, which was a success from the
beginning. I wrote the FAQ for it and despite that its activity has
declined, people still inquire about the FAQ. But the CA psychopunks
were opposed to this project, because they were not controlling it. And
they conspired in the most malicious ways to thwart its establishment.
One of their favorite tactics is to say, `so and so is working on it.
don't do anything.' If anyone else has gotten this line from any
cypherpunk, I urge you to ignore it as a lie.

>By last summer, Detweiler was handing out "Cypherpunks of the Week"
>awards, was arguing for his own form of electronic democracy (one
>person one vote, to be done on a daily basis on all sorts of
>issues....needless to say, many of us disagreed with him), and was
>generally ranting and raving.

I think it is clear that Electronic Democracy and the cypherpunk vision
of Cryptoanarchy are simply fundamentally incompatible. But it took a
long time for me to realize that it wasn't that it wasn't a great idea,
but that the CA psychopunks recognized their Antichrist when they heard
the words `Electronic Democracy' and flamed it into oblivion with all
their tentacles on the list.

>He apparently decided that I, for example, was using a
>variety of fake names, including Nick Szabo, Hal Finney, Geoff Dale
>(yes, the very same folks you all know from _this_ List!), 

yes, cypherpunk readers, and from *where* else do you know them? G.Dale
is real, but as for the others...?

>Thus, if Nick Szabo argues
>against electronic democracy AND has a Netcom account, as I do, then
>it's obvious: szabo at netcom.com is obviously a "tentacle" of
>tcmay at netcom.com! What could be more obvious?

we know that szabo at netcom.com was one of your favorite sites to
`pseudopool' from, or have many different cypherpunks post through from
`behind the scenes'. T.C.May was one such cypherpunk. This question of
who posts through the account is independent of who Szabo is as a human being.

>This all increased, with Detweiler launching daily rants against me,
>Eric Hughes, and others. He demanded apologies "or else." He demanded
>statements from the "Cypherpunks High Command" that we no longer
>"pseudospoof." He appealed to John Gilmore to "put a stop to this
>pseudospoofing," but John was in Nepal on a trek and didn't respond.
>When John eventually returned, he replied in a calm manner and
>suggested that Detweiler was mistaken. True to form, Detweiler went
>ballistic at this "betrayal" and declared Gilmore to be just another
>"Big Mac."

The escalation started, really, after I had been betrayed by real
tentacles. Mr. May as usual is very careful to avoid any specific
references to them. And our information that T.C.May, E.Hughes, and
J.Gilmore are all involved in a pseudospoofing conspiracy comes from
insiders, not from speculation. This is why they are deathly terrified
of making any conclusive statements about their complicity.

>(In DetSpeak, many new terms exist.

I thank Mr. May for explaining the new terminology invented to
adequately summarize the cypherpunk conspiracy.

>He also drifts into Christian rants about Hell, Satan, God, and
>Damnation. Keeping track of his shifting terminology is a chore.)

I don't recall those. I'd be delighted if you post even one message of
the thousands I have written and sent in email, instead of distorting
the truth about their contents.

>He asked to be removed from the Cypherunks list, and was, but
>continued to post to it (blindly). 

I ask Mr. Hughes and Mr. May whether it is an invasion of privacy to
tell the world whether someone is on their list or not. I also ask them
why they seem to think that I am not receiving the cypherpunks list
even as I post to it.

>He created his own group, the
>"Cypherwonks" list, with a fascist list of rules and regulations about
>true identities, the evils of pseudospoofing, etc.

I'm delighted at Mr. May's reference to the cypherwonk charter as
`fascist'. Everyone is free to read it themself. send `info
cypherwonks' in the message body to majordomo at lists.eunet.fi. I think
you will find that the charter actually simply insists on a code of
ethics and morality in cyberspace -- something cypherpunks and their
leaders, not surprisingly because of their aversion to honesty, brand `fascist'.

I would like to know why Mr. May continually insists, despite our
damning evidence to the contrary (which unfortunately we are unable to
present publicly at this time, to continue to delineate the extent of
the conspiracy), that he has never used a `tentacle', and
simultaneously claims that rules and regulations about true identities,
against `the evils of pseudospoofing', are `fascist'.

>Detweiler issued death threats, saying he would be visiting the Bay
>Area to "kill the tentacles."

I have never said any such thing.  I have however posted some satirical
messages about `death to tentacles' or `death to cyberanarchists' that
could be misconstrued as real death threats by people with overactive
imaginations spurred by their fevered consciences. Mr. May's barrage of
references to events that have never happened and text that does not
exist frustrates me in the extreme-- most frustrating is that the
BrainDead, the Blind, and the Brainwashed do not challenge it. 

>He mostly did this under his an12070
>name, though he often confused the identities and made several telling
>slips

Mr. May, who says that he has no idea why anyone thinks he has
pseudospoofed with tentacles, says that S.Boxx `slipped' when he
`confused identities'. Why is this a `slip', Mr. May? What is your
advice on how to avoid such a `slip'?

>(Other evidence: same line lengths, same use of
>TeX-style ``quotes'' in messages, same use of no spaces between
>initials in names like "T.C.May," same florid languages, same emphasis
>on same issues, and, most tellingly of all, several "goofs" in which
>private messages to one or the other were quoted by the other, and
>even goofs within messages that alluded to himself as "Lance" or
>"Larry.") 

the same list of circumstantial evidence could be built to associate
szabo at netcom.com with T.C.May. In fact, I challenge Mr. May to say the
following: I have never posted a message under the szabo at netcom.com
name. And if he succeeds in doing so, I ask why he has refused to claim
this publicly for months, despite ample opportunity and the urging of
many outsiders.

>several "goofs" in which
>private messages to one or the other were quoted by the other, and
>even goofs within messages that alluded to himself as "Lance" or
>"Larry.") 

again, a `goof'. But it seems that only someone that believed that
keeping identities *separate*, and *deceiving* people of their
independence and uniqueness, would consider the S.Boxx prose `slips' or `goofs'.

>I expect one day to hear Detweiler has shot and killed himself, or has
>shot and killed others, or is holding them hostage. I know the
>Colorado Cypherpunks group--which expelled Detweiler from their
>physical meetings and from their list--is fairly concerned about their
>security, and the security of Phil Zimmermann, who lives in Colorado
>and whom Detweiler alternately characterizes as "God" or as "Satan."

The Colorado cypherpunks is not even a half dozen people, and when I
was kicked off `we' (at that time, `we' anyway) had had one meeting at
a coffee shop. It is nothing but Nate Sammons and a pathetically lame
list, and it was refreshing to be thrown off it, because it helped me
be free of these petty, egotistical people, CA wannabes, and discover
new enemies. There was no `expulsion', it was nothing but an
egotistical dictator, very much similar to E.Hughes, throwing me off
the list unilaterally and without telling me, secretly conspiring with
the rest to do so, and lying about the events that led to my
`expulsion'. As for my relationship with PRZ, the CA cypherpunks have no clue.

As for `shooting and killing', I have a few things to say. (1) People
who know me know that I am the most nonviolent person in the world. My
writing may be violent by my body is not. (2) I do not own a gun or any
other deadly weapon, contrary to virtually all the cypherpunks. (3) Mr.
May announced publicly in the newsgroups that `I have a Gun' and
indicated he would use it if I ever visited the CA area. If there is
any paranoia about `shooting and killing' it is entirely his. (4) All
the cypherpunks are nothing but stellar hypocrites when they complain
of `death threats' in writing. The believe that, apparently, all
messages are meaningless unless I type them. When I talk about their
conspiracy I am lying, but when I am ridiculing their fears, it is
`violent death threats' to be taken with the utmost seriousness,
unequivocal proof that soon I am going to go off the deep end and take
hostages or kill someone.

>After the latest rounds of forged messages, with my name attached and
>with .sig block attached,

Mr. May, when he sees editorial cartoons in the newspaper, probably
likewise considers them `forgeries'. He is incapable of understanding
the distinction of truth and satire, having, like the rest of the CA
psychopunks, stoned himself for years on lies.

What Mr. May calls `forgeries' are actually carefully crafted insults
and satire directed at the people most responsible for the Cypherpunk
conspiracy, and masterpieces of art, as the enormous exploding S.Boxx
following attests. In giving no respect to the Cypherpunk identities by
ridiculing and misrepresenting their signatures, a karmic balance is
achieved with their own disrespect for the honesty of trust of others
in their routine, continual, persistent, unabated violations and
embezzlements accruing from their own poisonous pseudospoofing.

If anyone doubts my claims anywhere in this letter, please read Risks
15.25,15.27, and 15.28x, or ask Mr. May to provide the nonexistent
letters that he refers to.

>No an12070
>messages have been seen by me for several days now, and Detweiler has
>made comments about how S. Boxx "told him" that his account has been
>stopped. Yeah, right.

Actually, I heard that S.Boxx is being held hostage or has been
assassinated by cypherpunks. Or it could be that he hasn't been
censored at all, but that I claimed that to show that Cypherpunks, such
as T.C.May (who has admitted to requesting S.Boxx be censored) were the
hypocrites who asked that he be.

So that's the saga of T.C.May and the cypherpunks, the biggest Net Perversion to be
born in cyberspace.

--Tim May


-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay at netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, cheap assassination rates.
Higher Power:2**859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.