Re: A favor re Detweiler

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

Mr. Finney makes many references to private mail correspondence of mine
and many presumptions of my thoughts, many of which are incorrect and
none of which I have given him permission to do so.

No one would be doing me any favor by contacting me personally over the
`Dinkelacker matter'. Please do not do so. I am very shocked that Mr.
Finney would have made any such request publicly without first
consulting with me. The style of this request reminds me of Mr. May's
public letter of some time ago to M.Landry over a `safe and fun
environment', the latter individual telling me he was shocked over Mr.
May's public address on his own private matter. 

>Nevertheless, in this 
>particular case, the situation is so obviously causing mental suffering 
>that I assume that if Larry's charges were true that Tim would have 
>confessed in order to spare Larry this pain.)

The situation you describe has nothing to do with me personally. I
assume that if there were no merit to the `charges' Mr. May or Mr.
Hughes would have long ago posted a message specifically denying them
instead of obfuscating the issue with satire, evasions, and propaganda.
Mr. Hughes and Mr. May are unresponsive to my personal email. And
because of his complicity in the evasion and rather uncharacteristic
message (with many striking irregularities) I now doubt the existence of H. Finney.

I have tried in total desperation to find someone I respect to condemn
pseudospoofing for the evil it is. No one has done so. My respect for
many individuals has dropped accordingly. My respect for many black
phantoms has dropped accordingly. (I wish I could tell the difference.)
My respect for the cypherpunk group as a whole has dropped accordingly.
`Their' respect for me has dropped accordingly. (There is a lot of
`reputation capital' being transacted at the moment.)

I have resigned my role and unsubscribed from another list I have been
long committed to that is cross-pollinated (or should we say,
`contaminated', `tainted', and `poisoned') by some cypherpunks, over
the same issue of pseudospoofing. I fear I have lended valuable time
and `reputation capital' to a cause, that has become apparent to me
through many public and private letters by many people, to be devoid of
integrity. I blame certain individuals for this treacherous
misrepresentation of basic cypherpunk goals. And as for `being
assaulted in email' there is absolutely no doubt this has happened to
me. Whether by phantoms or real people, I have no idea. I find it
reprehensible that no one can give me any assurance.

I encourage any other `cypherpunks' who find this practice of
pseudospoofing reprehensible to unsubscribe from the list in protest,
and carry out further debate on the `agenda' in newsgroups.

If any systematic and concerted illusions or deceptions relating to
cypherpunks are being promoted by anyone, I will be no party to it. I
will quite to the contrary work to pierce the balloon of deceit with
the sharp needle of truth. Perhaps even from the inside of the balloon.
I suspect that `the Dinkelacker matter' is merely one square inch on
the entire black balloon.

The only service that will aid my `mental anguish' and cause me to
reconsider my involvement with this `group' is a post in the following from:


Newsgroups: talk.politics.crypto,alt.wired
From: tcmay@netcom.com
Subject: Multiple Personality Disorder

I have never posted or emailed under the account jamie@netcom.com.
Jamie Dinkelacker is a distinct human individual from myself. Eric
Hughes and I condemn the poisonous practice of pseudospoofing. It is
not a goal of the cypherpunks. We do not practice it. In fact, we are
investigating ways to prevent it on the list, starting with database of
everyone who has promised not to.

Furthermore, a rumor that actors were used in Wired article photographs
is simply false. To my knowledge anyone ever pictured in a photograph
of any `cypherpunk' group member in the mainstream media was at least a
list subscriber.


``Oh what a tangled web we weave; when first we practice to deceive.''
--``Shakespeare''