Portland, OR, Key-Signing+

[jim bell]

At 08:45 PM 2/12/96 -0800, Bruce Baugh wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>ANNOUNCING:
>THE SECOND QUASI-MONTHLY PORTLAND CYPHERPUNKS SOIREE AND KEY-SIGNING

>I really hate to add this particular paragraph (and it isn't in the
>version that'll get posted to newsgroups), but...one person won't be
>welcome. Jim Bell's conduct at the last meeting and on the list are
>such as to make it quite clear that I don't want him in my home.

Bullshit, Bruce!  My "conduct" at the last meeting was quite acceptable 
(nobody else complained, BTW) ; the source of the entire dispute that ensued 
was completely the irresponsible conduct of Alan Olsen in flaming me on the 
national cypherpunks list, and my only "crime" was objecting to his flames.  
I was, quite frankly, shocked that Alan Olsen would behave as badly AFTER
the meeting as 
he did.  NOTHING that happened AT THE MEETING prepared me for his later abuse.

It turns out, however, that he later incriminated himself by admitting to 
sending some anonymous flames on Cypherpunks to me; if anything you should 
be objecting to HIS behavior for this.  The fact that you are not is QUITE 
REVEALING.  (Clearly, Olsen was massively (and, at least on the record, at 
that time, secretly) strongly objecting to my political philosophy and ideas 
LONG BEFORE the meeting, yet he didn't have the guts to confront me before the 
meeting.)

Even you apparently admit this to be true, by virtue of remembering (now!) 
to carefully point out that material discussed at the meeting is "fair game" 
for future discussion on lists.  You're obviously trying to cover Olsen's 
ass on this matter by retroactively making it look like what Olsen did was 
somehow "acceptable".  For the record, I object:  Kow-towing to a few people 
by prohibiting cameras, yet flaming others (anonymously, no less!) for 
non-hostile commentary made at the first meeting makes Olsen look terrible, 
and defending him makes you look pretty bad.

Olsen's setting up a local Cypherpunks area, adding my name to the list, 
then removing my name when things got a bit too embarrassing is clearly his 
standard (mis)behavior; you appear to be adopting his policies and practices.

If you REALLY were well meaning, you would not tried to flaunt your 
rejection of me in a public message; you would have kept that part private.  
What you want to be able to do is to pretend that it is I who was at fault 
for Olsen's transgressions; you don't know newer attendees to hear both 
sides of the story.

How does it feel to be a sleazy character, Bruce?

Jim Bell

Klaatu Burada Nikto