On 23 Jan 2002, at 20:11, Doc.Cypher wrote:
> Many thanks for that, I didn't believe it had been posted to Usenet. > > The short URL for it is > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3l1q2d%24rk2%40news-2.csn.net > > > Doc. > - -- Kind of an interesting read. I find it kind of odd that Detweiller seems to assert that "cypherpunks" were unanimous in denying the existence of "true names" and regarding statements about the "truthfulness" of identity statements as being meaningless. I wouldn't expect such monolithic opinions on cypherpunks on any issues, but particularly not those ones. Having said that, it seems to me that, assuming Detweiller is accurately stating his own opinions (I tend to find it a little disconcerting when people write about themselves in the third person like he is apparently doing; I'm not sure if he means to imply that "the Detweiller who wrote is reviweing this has somewhat different opinions form the Detweiller being reviewed", but it reads that way to me. Which is really odd since it would seem to contradict the notions he seems to hold about the unchanging nature of identity), I think at least some of what he is saying is pretty clearly just plain wrong. Although it is undeniable that certain individuals have identifiers that they would regard as being their "true names", other individuals simply don't. Whether or not there is any value to the concept of a "true name", the idea that each individual has such a thing as his or her true name at any point in time (let alone unchanging for life) is simply contradicted by real world experiences. I would think that would be the end of that particular discussion. George
