Re: cypherpunks and politics (Re: USWA)

[jamiel@sybase.com (Jamie Lawrence)]

At 11:37 AM 04/14/94 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote:
>Jamie Lawrence wrote:

>The list is what people make of it. Nothing more and nothing less. If
>you have held off on writing 'til now about topics that are of great
>interest to you, then why are you surprised that the topics others
>write about don't match your interests?

First off, don't dismiss  me  as  a whiner.  I personally
could care less about your  personal politics until  they
overlap with crypto. But you misread my post consistently.

Perhaps I did poorly at expressing myself. I haven't been
writing due to time constraints. It is not *my* political
interests being underrepresented here that I was rambling
about. It was the potential loss of other people. Extreme
example- If you started to read a book called _Crypto for
the Masses_ by someone who rambled on for 400 pages about
socialism,  and  then  got  to  the point and made really
valid, cutting observations about  the  state  of crypto,
what are the odds you'd read to that section?

>Nobody's asking you to be "associated with libertarianism," for
>example. That many of us are libertarian-oriented is hardly
>surprising, this being the Net. And the nonlibertarians are welcome,
>but they seldom make persuasive arguments contradiciting the lib.
>views, in my opinion. Certain non-lib (though *I* call him
>libertarian!) folks like Dave Mandl are very welcome here, and make
>their views known.

What  I  was  trying to say  was not that I feel torn between 
being on this  list and  my own  views, but that disregarding
what anyone here may or may not believe in, first impressions
are  gonna chase a  lot of people away who otherwise could be
sympathetic to many beliefs that seem to be held as important.

>> The point is that  even if you  think anyone  with a viewpoint
>> opposing yours is automatically stupid and not worth your time
>> (and I don't think  that  too many of you are that bad off ;),
>> aren't they at least  worth  using  to  further  something you
>> believe strongly in? It  might  do  well  to  be   careful  in 
>> alienating   potential  allys  by  flip  political  jokes  and
>> comments. 

>I don't know if this is a jab at me or not, perhaps for my sin of
>poking fun at Ross Perot.....I felt a satirical, but probably close to
>the truth, point about Perot's authoritarian streak would make my
>point better than a simple statement of my views.

I wasn't replying to you so much as using this thread as a jump point
for (!!) a new topic, specifically that of perceptions of others Re:
this list. 

No, it wasn't a jab at you (I think Perot is scary as well)-
sorry if my comments lent themselves to this interpretation.
I do think, however, it would be valid  to say that  a Perot
supporter should be considered a potential  ally- as much as
a libertarian or even a Clinton supporter.

>If you want your brand of politics discussed here, as it relates to
>cryptography, privacy, Clipper, etc., then *discuss* it. You can't
>blame others for making their own comments.

That was not my point.

I do not  blame others for anything.  The goal was  to inform
others of the perceptions of a relative newcomer  to the list
who  differs  significantly in opinion on numerous  points in
relation to a attracting newcomers to the wonderful  world of
crypto. If I thought this list didn't interest me, I wouldn't
be on it.

>--Tim May

-j