`ad hominem' ad nauseam

[""L. Detweiler"" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>]

I'd like to respond to a few introspective cypherpunkesque notes by P.
Farrell and T.C. May.  I've considered the general attitudes toward
e.g. Denning and Sternlight seriously, particularly my own.  I freely
admit to banging out scathing verbiage on behalf of both here and
elsewhere and critical reactions both publicly and privately.

First, a general observation. It strikes me that many have not
recognized the true meaning of `ad hominem' in their casual and
careless use of it (perhaps even it is the only Latin term known to
some tossing it about because of its frequent appearance in
cyberspatial flame wars). I think it has taken a new meaning on the net
to be something like `making someone look like a fool'.  By my view, it
means *calling* someone a fool completely without justification (e.g.
attacking irrelevent aspects of their reputation).  However,
devastating their flimsy arguments and false beliefs to the point they
*look* like a fool is not an ad hominem attack.  Perhaps I will be
accused of splitting fibers but I think the distinction is transparent.

P.F.:
>I'm more than a little concerned about the vicious personal attacks that
>this list makes on folks that have strongly held beliefs that disagree with
>some (or all) of the beliefs of hot headed posters to cypherpunks.
>I thought this was a technical mailing list, that dabbled in politics only
>as necessary. I see no justification for the personal attacks, especially on
>3rd parties that do not read this list. These uncalled for attacks will not
>convince anyone on the list, and do not become the poster.

First, I will not argue that ad hominem or vicious attacks are
warranted. However, they are there because they are *motivated* by
tangible reasons that you fail to address. Let's look at each case:

[D. Denning]
>She just happens to support a view that she
>strongly believes in. The fact that I think her side is dead wrong does not
>make her an idiot. Name calling accomplishes nothing but does hurt the
>signal to noise ratio of this list.

First, it is not clear why Denning doggedly pursues the key escrow
scheme and advocation of Clipper, and she has never expressed any
conceivable reason. Your invention of `strong belief' is nothing but
pure speculation and in the glaring lack of any statements on the
subject by her, not any superior in plausibility than attributions of
black machinations by others.  Yet, on the other hand, virtually
everyone who is (admittedly) equally dogmatically opposed to Clipper
supplies a continuous torrent of personal motivations, anecdotes, and
background for their characteristic position and drive. D. Denning once
volunteered some weak statistics on wiretapping a long time ago but has
long since abandoned them.  Others suggested they showed to the
contrary that wiretapping did not have a socially significant effect
despite severe compromises and sacrifices to institute it.

>Even more annoying are the attacks on Jim Bidzos. He is trying to make a
>buck, which was legal last time I looked. And on many issues, he is far more
>in our camp than against us. He at least likes strong cryptography, and his
>disputable patents expire in a relatively short time. He has agreed to allow
>a PGP-compatible program to use RSA without cost, providing the legal
>version that many U.S. users would like to see.

Again, you are postulating hypothetical motivations. You supply no
direct evidence for your claims whatsoever, despite very disturbing
evidence to the contrary (PGP hassling, DSA scheming, patent-mongering,
laywer-breeding, etc.).  As for the PGP case you cite, why has it taken
years for him to reverse the companies well-known belligerence despite
overtures by PRZ? Probably because of strong public pressure and PR
opportunism, IMHO. I don't claim my opinion is correct, but I do claim
that it is most plausible in light of all the data.

[T.M.]
>What really bothers me is the type of criticism, which I also tend to call
>"ad hominem" (but which rhetoriticians may have a special name for), in
>which people impute _motives_ to others. Thus, we see seemingly endless
>comments about the motives of Denning, of Bidzos, of Sternlight, and of
>others.
>[...]
>While I think Dorothy Denning is, for various reasons, hopelessly in the
>camp of the NSA and FBI, I see nothing to be gained by demonizing her.

This was a bit confusing to me to hear Mr. May first criticize imputing
motives, and then to say that `Denning is for various reasons
hopelessly in the camp of the NSA and FBI'.  What are her various
reasons for her bizarre lone intransigence?  The whole *point* is that
these reasons are unclear, and most of the `endless comments about the
motives' by others are actually encouraging bait for those parties to
publicly `come clean' with their associations and affiliations.  These
people's actions are completely baffling from our own point of view and
troubling in light of other hazy but discernable ulterior
trend-patterns. What is their version of reality? Particularly with
Denning and Bidzos their public comments on their motivations, despite
the sheer strangeness of it all, are essentially nonexistent.

I must admit a bit of frustration and annoyance (to say the least) with
T.C. May's habitual tendency to don rosy glasses in viewing the actions
of Denning and Bidzos and others (speaking in spineless psychoanalytic
babble like `cognitive dissonance'), seemingly reflecting a continual
forebearance and willingness to grant them `the benefit of the doubt'
despite increasingly sinister evidence of motives to the contrary.

Denning, in particular, has explicitly claimed no knowledge of Clipper
despite her uncannily prescient proposals (she was the *first* to
propose the `split key' idea on sci.crypt in an infamous `Copper
Balloon' message).  Bidzos appears to me to be playing different
cyberpunks against each other and making lame statements such as that
the DSS arrangement is completely sensible and rational despite the
historical convolutions preceding it.  We are dealing with people who
are failing to level with us at best and tricking and deceiving us at
worst, and the `demonizing' represents our desperation.  To the
contrary, it is attribution of their motives to `socializing' and
`support' from their `peer group' that dangerously trivializes,
underestimates, misjudges them.

[`demonizing']
>... weakens our cause, for two reasons. First, it
>cuts off dialog with those we disagree with. Second, we tend to
>underestimate people we have written off as stooges or dunces.

As the sci.crypt melee you valiantly instigated dramatically proves,
dialogue has so far been completely useless. Despite the most critical
reception possible to the idea of key escrow about 6 months before the
release of Clipper, no modification of the plan was apparent.  D.
Denning may as well be a brick wall when it comes to rational
consideration of opposing viewpoints on the subject (which she
conveniently delegates to others to explore).  She simply will not
budge from her basic premise that key-escrow is wholly desirable and
necessary.  In short, at present we have an impasse, not `dialogue'. 
Furthermore, it is precisely in scathingly criticizing opponents that
we encourage others *not* to underestimate these people and their
dangerous ideas.  That is the point: all of Denning, Bidzos, and
Sternlight are too intelligent to write of as `stooges or dunces' and
something more `intentional' and `systematic' is more likely.  That is
what is so alarming.

>... we ought not to use cheap shots and cheap rhetorical tricks
>(one I hate especially is the "sound effect" jab, the "<snicker, snicker>"
>sort of comment inserted into postings ...

While I've never done this, it is futile for you to request otherwise. 
This is one of the most colorful aspects of Usenet. Nothing is sacred
in cyberspace. Professional academicians will get ruthlessly ridiculed
or humiliated like anyone else if they doggedly advocate feeble ideas
through deluded arguments.  They are just another email address and
bursting bit pattern in the ultimate egaltarianocracy.  Who can escape
or transcend the glare of multitudinous eyes glued on a computer screen?