INTERNET PSEUDONYMN DEFENSE PROJECT-- IPDP-- 01-- Dept. of Justice

The Department of Justice has a program involving the defense and protection of real world people on the internet. I'll be looking into this as the CADC continues to associate a real world name with my pseudonymn and blog. This is the first point of entry into a ratcheted up defense.

Note to CADC-- Let's explore this area together. You keep using the real world name and I'll keep looking for indications that you're use of the real name can be legally stopped. It'll be a fun project since neither of us seems to know much about this area of law. I've been using a paralegal lately and i'll be down there next week. I'll ask about this-- just as a way to start.

The DOJ had a radio ad on the other day in which they were interested in a case where a woman's picctures were posted to the net against her will-- nude and all of that. That's a far cry from "our" case but it's in a similar area of "threat level" to a degree. The Internet Pseudonymn Defense Project, IPDP, will-- time permitting-- which is unlikely-- be able to establish it's own blog and forum-- and will gather momentium diuring the 21st century. This might not be resolved until after you and I are in the tanks-- but future history will prove me correct I think--

Just a point of order-- for your benefit. A blog is quite reasonably about a single person's areas of interest. My wide range of interests, even if some are a bit crazy, are perfectly legit to follow in the same blog as legit topics. This no longer has anything to do with any particular topic-- It's topic-neutral. Essentially what you're doing is attempting to twist my arm to not follow your favorite topic along with MY other topics-- which completely destroys the concept of a personal blog. In effect, you're on very thin ice. The Dept. of Justice IS getting more interested in things like this-- and I'll be following their work in this area to see how it applies to you. As I say, it'll be lots of fun.

My advice to you is, of course, to desist from using the real names attacked to the pseudonymns-- but more than that-- to simply counter my ideas, if you want, with your counter ideas in a blog called Anti-PhilOssifur Blog or something. Anything you say is fine-- as long as you do NOT lead the outside world to my doorstep from behind your own mask. Eventually this will become a bigger issue-- again time permitting-- since I have to work on house repair too-- and dental stuff, tax stuff etc..-- but in an IDEAL world, I'll be gaining ground on this issue-- and eventually expose you.

My position is a viable one-- and what you're doing is "unfair" according to the rules of the Code of Conduct of Arguing Online... It's akin to Road Rage, I think-- where there's a difference between cursing under your breath in your car-- and breaking out into an actual dangerous move or hand sign. The first is permitted, the the second is not.

As far as the defaming of an idea goes, again-- that's not sustainable. I have to tell you that I've been through several years of university, have read many many books and that I'm currently reading a lot. I understand things. I understand parameters. You and your CADC should reconsider using real world names and now-- locations and addresses-- in association with psuedonymns who do not wish to be exposed in such a way. Ben Franklin and Jonathan Swift were both forced to use psuedonymsn for reasons similar to my own....so there is a long historical traidtion of doing what I do-- for the reasons I do it.

Now-- aside from all of that-- the idea that you get to frame cryonics and I don't-- that is an entire philosophical issue where you're really out of touch with reality I think. You come across as a controlling reductionist-- with very LITTLE experience in and around the HUmanities departments of universities where ideas are bandied about all the time-- in varieties of context. If the Mormon chruch wanted to adopt the topic at stake here and frame it in their semantic frame, would you go up against them? You might, but would you have a legitimate case? No, you would not.

You're position would be laughable if it weren't so potentially damaging to me. You and your CADC, once exposed, will be laughed at in coming generations. Laughing stocks in history-- for the idea can be defamed. With a wreckless disregard for the points of views of others, I'm sure Justice Department would be very interested in you at some point-- They're very interested in online harrassment. I'll be happy to offer them examples of what I personally consider a threat to my person. You can help me demonstrate that to them-- by continuing to post a real world name in association with desired psuedonymns.

Oh one more thing. I think you and your group are more concerned about my following Larouche in the same blog than any other topic. THAT I think is at the heart of this. Because there are lots of blogs out there-- wacky blogs-- that deal with our topic-- and you have nothing to say about them... only mine. So I think it's Larouche who gets under your skin.

To that point then-- allow me allay your fears. Larouche isn't who his detractors say he is. There is a psyop war going on-- and it's all very complicated but the bottom line is that-- from one point of view-- the physical economy-- you might be interested to realize that the civiliziation itself must acknowledge ideas carried forward by Larouche by definition. If you argue against those points, I'd be interested in seeing that.

[+] FBI internet safety page