Impuning my reputation by association

[collins@newton.apple.com (Scott Collins)]

Hello,

I paraphrase, not quote, you in this message.  Please tell me if the
meanings I have extracted from your posts are not what you intended.  I
suspect, however, that whatever you might have intended, I attribute the
same meanings to your posts as the majority readers.

You say that there are no honest cypherpunks, only liars, slinking cowards,
and people too stupid to realize they are being 'taken'.  You attribute
many characteristics, particularly immoral ones, to cypherpunks, which
throughout the rest of this message I will summarize with the words: lying,
liar, etc.

If a cypherpunk is: 'anyone engaged in traffic on the cypherpunk list',
then both you and I are cypherpunks.  I believe myself to be honest,
forward, and intelligent.  I assume, of course, that you believe the same
of yourself.  Therefore, there must be at least two honest 'punks.  Since
you cannot easily verify that my beliefs about myself are true, it could be
that there is only one honest 'punk.  (From the old testement: "If, even
one righteous man dwells therein, I will stay My hand.")

If a cypherpunk is: 'anyone who uses cryptographic tools for the purposes
of fraud', then there can be no honest cypherpunks by definition.  I have
never, am not now, nor do I intend to in the future, use cryptographic
tools for the purposes of fraud, deception, character assassination, or
other wrongs.

Regardless of which definition of cypherpunks you, "L. Detweiler", believe,
people to whom you speak will assume the _first_ definition, which as a
set, contains you, me, and other potentially honest individuals.  If you
didn't mean that definition (they will not even bother to think to
themselves), you would have used the word 'criminals' or a derivative,
thereof.  You tell people "all cypherpunks are liars".  If they pass the
initial paradox (that you, a cypherpunk, are telling them you are liar), by
presuming your honesty, and therefore, necessarily, your exclusion from the
set, then they must now believe the false notion that I, Scott Collins,
_am_ a liar.

 -1- "L. Detweiler" tells people 'Scott Collins is a liar'.

 -2- I, Scott Collins, am not a liar.

My beliefs (including, like our Justice system, a general presumption of
innocense) about other cypherpunks does not even come into play here.  The
issue  is: you are impuning my character.

I leave the logical conclusion of statements -1- and -2- as an exersize for
the reader.

It seems that you have made yourself my judge, and worse, an executioner. 
How will you ensure Justice?  How will you find, with certainty, the Truth?
 Or, do you consider the persecution of innocents to be 'acceptable
losses'.  The precedents set in every written guideline of moral behavior
that I have read are exactly opposite this.  In our legal system: a)
defendents are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and b) are guaranteed
due legal process.  In the major religions with which I am familiar, it is
only the deity who may judge and punish, not man.

There are bad things in this world, and I hate those things.  You and I
even agree on what some of those things are.  But I ask you this:



            Who are _you_, to judge me?



            Who are _you_, to persecute me?



Scott Collins         | "Few people realize what tremendous power there
                      |  is in one of these things."     -- Willy Wonka
......................|................................................
BUSINESS.   voice:408.862.0540  fax:974.6094   collins@newton.apple.com
Apple Computer, Inc.   5 Infinite Loop, MS 305-2B   Cupertino, CA 95014
.......................................................................
PERSONAL.   voice/fax:408.257.1746    1024:669687   catalyst@netcom.com