[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: who, me?!?!
On Wed, 6 Apr 1994, Chris Knight wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Apr 1994 [email protected] wrote:
>
> > !?!?!?!?! detweiler this, detweiler that!!! why does everyone keep
> > calling me `detweiler' when my name is `[email protected]'?!!
>
> The above listed information is NOT a name.
You're right, it's an account, just as [email protected] is just an
account, and you've attached the psueonym "Chris Knight" to it.
> > look, i admit i am posting pseudonymously, but your
> > detweilerian witchhunt is a good reason why
>
> Remember the price of being anonymous... Nobody has to believe a word you
> say.
Price of being anonymous. You mean the price of being Obviously
anonymous. As opposed to this "Chris Knight" character, who has chosen
to show himself as to what looks like a real name. Ever wonder about
Emanuel Goldstein? That name is as valid as "Chris Knight"
> Personally, I don't care who you are. I do think you try to be an
> asshole, and you love getting on people's nerves.
I'm not going to touch this. After reading a few of "tmp@netcom"'s
messages, I aggree that he has been posting what "appear" to be childish
posts. But at the same time, there are many other posts here on this
list with just as much useless information.
Are cypherpunks for anonyminity? Authentication? Privacy? More than one?
-Matt (Just another alias)
([email protected])
"That which can never be enforced should not be prohibited."