Re: [noise] Re: Charter of PDX Cpunk meetings

[bernardo@alpha.c2.org]

jim bell wrote:

>> I think an explanation for this is due.  Jim is going to move his complaints
>> here instead of dealing with them with me no matter what I do...
>
> Alan Olsen is correct, here.

This is childish and pointless.  Please shut up or take it to email.

> But he (the anonymous poster):
> 1.  FLamed me on this national list, similarly to the way Alan Olsen later did.

FWIW, this is an _international_ list with a lot of people who are
just not interested in your petty bickering.  If you want to argue
about this, please do it in private.  If Alan posts responses to the
list, that's his problem.  You don't _have_ to answer in public.

> 2.  Failed to be willing to sustain the debate in a more appropriate list, 
> even under a stable nym.

You have something against anonymity?  In this case, perhaps this list
is not the best place to be.

> that I had been flamed by that anonymous poster.  The fact that he was
> anonymous says it all.  The fact that he has not returned says it all.  The 

The fact that he was anonymous says nothing whatsoever.  So what if
you received some email agreeing that you'd been flamed?

> the fact that I am relatively new here.  I have no intention of inflicting
> an unwelcome discussion of "Assassination Politics" on the list, and 

Actually, and Perry may disagree here, but I'd have no objection to a
discussion of "Assassination Politics", or any other nutty political
theories, as long as we can stick to reasonably mature discussion and
not flames and petty ego boosting.

> suffered any longterm loss of reputation of his own.  I, on the other hand, 
> use my REAL NAME.

Whoopie!  A True Name!  Big deal.  I care not one jot whether or not
you use your REAL NAME.  I have no way of knowing if it is, in fact,
your real name.  Should it make a difference?

No one is going to "suffer any longterm loss of reputation" by
disagreeing with you, or anyone else, whether or not they use a nym
(or anonymity).

> Only a fool would have taken an anonymous flamer seriously under those 
> circumstances.

An anonymous post is no less valid for being anonymous.  The only
advantage of a stable nym, whether or not it's a True Name, is the
ability to gain (or lose) reputation through the content of its
posts.  Perhaps a nym with some reputation is taken more seriously
than an anonymous poster, but so is an unknown nym.  Neither you nor
Alan has any reputation to speak of (to me, at least), so an anonymous
post has no less.

>> Jim ignored that request and I removed him from the list.
> 
> Read:  "Alan Olsen exercised his authority in his own personal fiefdom, the 
> "PDX Cypherpunks list."

Are you saying he doesn't have that right?  If it's his list, he can
do whatever the hell he likes with it.

> On the contrary, I have no interest in dealing with this sleazy character in 
> email.  He was the one who chose a national list to do his flaming and 
> baiting, and I think he deserves full "credit."

In other words, you are not interested in resolving any problem you
have with Alan, you just to make a lot of noise in public in an
attempt to "embarrass" him.  Go play on some other list where this
kind of thing is appreciated.

>> The following is the last I will say publically on the matter.
> 
> You're going to take your bat and ball and "go thwait home!"  You hear your 
> mommy calling, Alan.

This list periodically devolves into this childishness.  I'm glad Alan
is not going to say any more.  I award Alan 20 Reputation Points for
being mature enough to walk away (delayed long enough to see whether
he does)