Fwd: Re: Tim May and anonymous flames.

[jamesd at echeque.com]

    --
On 29 Aug 2001, at 16:40, Gary Jeffers wrote:

> My fellow Cypherpunks,
>
>    Some time ago Tim May flamed me and I responded with the
>    post:
> Tim May goes bush shooting. 
> http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.2000.09.25-2000.10.01/m
> sg00388.html
>    .
> Note: The 3rd reference was bad. The corrected reference is: 
> http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.2000.09.18-2000.09.24/m
> sg00167.html
>    .
>
>    This has gotten me thinking and I have the following
> observations and conjectures:
>
> 1. It is predictable that Tim May will be flammed. The FBI has
> a
>   history of covertly sowing internal dissent in dissident
>   groups. As a leading Cypherpunk, May is an obvious target.
>
> 2. Anonymous flames are dirt cheap and safe for the FBI.
>
> 3. The FBI will do them well. By definition, the flames will be
>   professional :-)
>
> 4. The flames will be worded so as to distress the target.
>
> 5. The flames will be seeded with clues to imply that a
> particular
>   Cypherpunk did them: distinctive syntax, mispellings,
>   phrases,
> etc..
>   This will help make the group ineffective.
>
> 6. Other leading Cypherpunks will also be targeted.
>
> 7. The anonymous flames will be hard to falsify in their
> pointing
>   to a particular Cypherpunk.

Again, the masterly brilliant feds.  :-)

Not bloody likely. 

    --digsig
         James A. Donald
     6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
     gEr16INPZtMFBKYPp83VqROIPjrN1unJ3A2AT3+U
     4u6flxJureQW4HM8sC43dM+Z3Tyf49PUeGOGaAnnp