Pitch Black

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

Someone, I forget who, recently had some words about pseudoanonymity
here. I (once) deeply respected this person and hoped he could lead me
from my madness with some reassuring words to comfort my anxieties
about pseudospoofing and other deceptions by cypherpunk leadership --
someone who could indicate to me that there was concern over morality
at the topmost level. I realize now that was a totally hopeless,
impossible, futile expectation. The supposedly credible and reputable
person, in response to my concerns about integrity, only further
perpetuated the ad hominem slurs on my sanity and the attacks on my
efforts at honesty. I have nothing but another few K of obfuscations
and disinformation in favor of the Religion of Pseudospoofing, myself
the Foremost Blasphemous Heretic, burned at the stake for my crimes.

All I can do is attempt to stop the oozing blood and untwist the knife
with some final feeble rasps. I am on my Cypherpunk deathbed, with
tears streaming down my face at having had faith and trust in murderous
betrayors. Upon whose hands is my blood?

>  *  Electronic media are no different from paper media in making
>     it possible to use multiple names.  Talk to Mark Twain, Dr.
>     Seuss, Alice Cooper, Poor Richard, Paul French, or Franklin W.
>     Dixon if you don't believe me.  My experience is that references
>     among aliases in literary works are seen as `in-jokes', which only
>     the truly educated (in that particular realm, like science
>     fiction) can notice and chuckle over.

The `entity' asserts that through all my efforts in delineating
deceptive uses of identity, none exist. He equates the manipulation,
propaganda, deception, disinformation, lies, betrayal, treachery, and
brainwashing of tentacles as an `in-joke' that the `truly educated can
notice and chuckle over'. Perhaps the same in-joke that truly
enlightened gang rapists can perpetrate and chuckle over.

>  *  Your examples imply that some of the people on cypherpunks
>     are using pseudonyms to deceive people:
>
>      I think that you mistake an honest advocacy of the right to use
>      multiple names, for an advocacy of deceit.  The main reason to
>      use multiple names is so that your "enemies" cannot correlate
>      your activities so that they can punish you in one part of your
>      life for things they don't like in some other part.

I think we *both* have mistaken an advocacy of deceit for an honest
advocacy of identity, privacy, and anonymity. I think many others are
continuing to be subject to evil depravities unchecked by my wailing
screeches. I think that the topmost leadership in this organization is
not interested in the privacy of honest people, they are interested in
protecting the privacy for criminals, like terrorists, drug dealers,
tax evaders, pedophiles, spies, and traitors. I think they salivate and
have orgasms over the possibility of manipulating honest people with
their reputation embezzments, swindles, doublecrossing, other joyous
crimes for which you are never held accountable. If you are a criminal,
and your `activities' are `correlated' by Police `enemies' with
depravity, God help us all that when the police grab your arm it is not
a writhing severed tentacle, and that you are punished, and if you are
not contrite you are punished without mercy, and that if you commit
crimes like fraud against the trusting, `in one part of your life',
another part of your life called your `freedom' is taken away, as you
ponder your sorry predicament behind cold, unmoving steel bars.

>David Chaum was the first person I noticed advocating the use of a
>different pseudonym for transactions with each different organization.
>(This was automatically done by a smart-card in his design.)  Is he
>part of the evil conspiracy too, or does he have a point worth
>hearing?

David Chaum does not advocate pseudoanonymity, and you are nothing but
an evil liar for suggesting that he does. A Chaumian bank *knows* it is
dealing with a pseudonym. It is OBVIOUSLY PSEUDOONYMOUS. Perhaps you
would like to have Anonymous Contracts, so that when you BREAK ONE the
OPPRESSIVE ORWELLIAN BANK, stupidly thinking it could TRACE YOU, is
CHEATED BY A LIAR. Perhaps you WEEP WITH JOY at the thought of HONEST
PEOPLE ENDLESSLY PAYING for the CRIMES OF SOCIAL PARASITES. If Chaum
had any sense of decency he would STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM CYPHERPUNKS.

Do not look for approval of your perverted Pseudospoofing Religion in
your Revered Science Fiction Authors, your Eminent Cryptographic
Researchers, your Pretty Good Privacy Programmer, because they are
RESPECTABLE and LAW ABIDING and they have the sense to stop LIES and
CORRUPTION and CONSPIRACIES.

>How would *you* turn back the trend toward having every bit
>of information about each person accessible to anyone who knows their
>name, date of birth, fingerprint, license number, license plate,
>vehicle ID number, passport number, genotype, bank account number,
>retina print, credit card number, photo, or social security number?
>Or do you think that this is a *good* thing?

*you* wish to turn back the trend of Civilization that has moved toward
accountability and reduced the ease of cheating honest people from
their money. *you* advocate that *no* identification exist whatsoever,
particularly the kind that prevents criminals from being prosecuted for
their crimes. And you think that this is a *good* thing.

>People are under no obligation to tell you whether the name you know
>them by is their only name --

People are under every obligation to tell the truth in a civilized
society. I choose to live in one. You can have your depraved barbarism.

>By assuming
>that "the right way for things to be" is for everyone to have a single
>name, uniformly used, you have found a conspiracy where there was
>simply a difference of opinion.

By assuming that cypherpunk leadership did not necessarily have
integrity, I have found a conspiracy where there is simply a vacuum of morality.

>I think that your artificial distinction between "pseudonyms" and
>"pseudospoofing" is the root of where your thinking took a wrong turn.

I think your lies and self-deception and associations and defenses of
perverts are the root of where *yours* took a wrong turn. I think, to
the contrary, the `wrong turn in thinking' is the `Movement' that
embraces the flag of Freedom of Speech, Privacy for the Masses, and the
Cryptographic Revolution, only to throw it to the ground, trample,
burn, and urinate upon it when no one is looking. The Cypherpunks
succeed at nothing but hypocrisy and depravity.  Led by a
conspirational clique of squirmy apologists and slimy moral relativists
mindraping the cybervirgins for vicious sport and the positive peer
approval of fellow psychopaths. 

Your hideous criminal clock, your insidious time bomb, is tick-tick-ticking.

Go to hell, Medusa