[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: not a flame please read and think about this
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SANDY SANDFORT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C'punks,
On Thu, 7 Sep 1995 [email protected] wrote:
> why is it that half the
> people who post here work for the government or big companies that are doing
> governments bidding (rand.org (which is part of the the nsa!) att.com (makers of the clipper chip)
> mit (which onwns rsa)
> netscape etc etc)
I doubt the statistics and I don't see how mere employment with
the above somehow disqualifies one for having a regard for
privacy. In many cases, they have a much better grasp of the
threat than the rest of us.
> what makes me wonder isnt so much that theyre here but that they post socalled
> reasonable stuff that supports the the government line.
This is nonsense. Please give some examples of the sycophantic
posts you claim supports "the government line."
> like when these people report on
> what the nsa guy says at the crypto convention as if were supposed to take it
> seriously and these people who say clipper is good enough no back doors.
> and then everyone takes this crap seriously.
Who? When? To which "everyone" do you refer?
> . . . arent we supposed to be
> cypherPUNKS?
What the hell is that supposed to mean? The name was given and
accepted in jest. I'm not aware of any special PUNK
qualifications. Please elucidate.
> than why do we need these people to think for us?
The Cypherpunks I know certainly don't; sorry to hear about you.
Are you planning to show up at Saturday's anniversary meeting
again, Larry?
S a n d y
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~