Talk:Timothy C. May
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.|
|WikiProject Biography||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Internet||(Rated Start-class)|
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Maybe it\'s not noteworthy, but over the years, especially since 2000, Tim May\'s vitriol has acquired an increasingly racist tone. Don\'t get me wrong; he has always made racist posts to the Cypherpunks mailing list and to Usenet, however in years past this racism was usually qualified somewhat. These days, most, or at least the supermajority of his posts are all-out racist rants. e.g. at the time of this comment, the following Google Groups Usenet archive of Tim May\'s latest posts, sorted by date, all contain racial slurs: , mostly against Blacks, but occasionally against Hispanics and Jews. Occasionally he also rants about homosexuals, as well.
His political views could also be considered as conspiracy theory.
I\'m not sure if he would count as a net.kook, but maybe.
My opinion is that Tim May's intolerant or racist posts aren't intended as serious argumentation, but rather, he just enjoys irritating PC liberals. Browsing over his recent usenet posts, a clear majority of them are spiced with words that are intended to push peoples' buttons. I know for a fact that, years ago, most of his usenet posts were more serious in nature, but even then, he did a lot of trolling. But I've also seen him maintain a highly respectful and polite persona on a more closed, serious listserv. I also gather that he has quite a few prominent friends in the Bay area, some of them Jewish. I've seen some of them refer to meeting him in person; nobody ever gave even the slightest indication that he's hard to be around. So, I suspect many of the elements of his net persona are meant to annoy the people he disagrees with.
Snacky 06:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- I wonder why his racism was hidden behind the "unique brand of libertarianism" euphemism. Or maybe it's the same kind of racist libertarianism that Eric S. Raymond espouses, but if that's the case, it's no longer unique, is it? rone 07:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- The article does need to add the word "libertarian" to describe him. Tim uses it himself. Many people in Silicon Valley feel that way (T. J. Rodgers at Cypress Semiconductor might be another example). Also, Tim is part of the subject of Pauline Borsook's 2000 book Cyberselfish. That should probably be referenced. Ask him about the cause/end of the Civil War and it wasn't slavery but the cotton gin (technology) which was the bigger issue to him. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be best to simply put a few of Tim's own words into the article. Then there is no need to characterize them per se. I would suggest a look at http://groups.google.com/group/misc.survivalism/browse_thread/thread/dfefbf807703ede4/9be1bd4ad0a33c50?lnk=st&q=author%3Atim+author%3Amay#9be1bd4ad0a33c50 or at http://groups.google.com/group/misc.survivalism/browse_thread/thread/f4af97e4d77ea446/709e9a452e110b1e?lnk=st&q=author%3Atim+author%3Amay#709e9a452e110b1e A few choice words from either of those would allow people to come to their own conclusions. Pmetzger (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- i tend to agree with snacky, above. may seems to be addressing many of the same kind of issues that many others do, but others couch them in politically-correct tones. may, instead, is trying to push as many hot-buttons as he can. that used to be called "freedom of speech". and other than his button-pushing, it is misleading to call this "racism". it used to be that "made in japan" was virtually an insult to a product, but by the late 1970's the japanese were outpacing america in some areas. suppose a person has a great deal of respect for japanese, chinese, koreans, because they have educated many of their populations to successfully compete in the world market. if that same person slams other foreign (and different-race) cultures does that automatically make him racist? (i am not saying this is true of may: i don't know). may is making arguably-valid distinctions, but he seems to enjoy peppering his commentary with provocative words. Bob Emmett (talk) 08:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
It should also be noted that Tim claims to be a felon, and has murdered several homeless people in Santa Cruz in the 1980's by burning them to death in their sleep. These murders are documented. He also claims the government is "out to get him," and that any helicopter generally spotted over the Watsonville area is spying on him. All one needs to do is turn to usenet to find his own words making these claims, repeatedly. And for anyone claiming this isn't Tim May, sorry, it is without a doubt, many of the newsgroup regulars are his neighbors and have known him personally for many years. Why is none of this being added to the article? Ragreen (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- there is a psychological phenomenon that some people just seem to want to "confess" to crimes that they did not commit. talk to any police or detectives. after a major crime, they get plenty of "confessions", usually entirely made up. strange, huh? there's no doubt that homeless people do get murdered, and these murders are documented, but that doesn't mean that may's role in those murders is similarly documented. did may ever confess to a crime that hadn't been discovered, yet? probably not. Bob Emmett (talk) 06:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- He is retired as of 2003.
I believe he retired circa 1985 — that is, I dimly remember that he said in ~1992 that he was 41 then and had retired at age 34 (thanks to some fortunate investments). —Tamfang (talk) 04:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)