[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: CYPHERPUNK considered harmful.
I don't know about national characteristics. After all,
"What's in a name? Would a rose by any other name..."
and so on.
Cypherpunk fits. Cypherpunk suits. So, if the
suit fits...
MacN
On Wed, 13 Sep 1995, Duncan Frissell wrote:
> At 10:57 AM 9/13/95 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote:
>
> >While I have had some qualms about the name, on balance I think it has been
> >good for us. After all, it's not as if _other_ groups don't already exist!
> >In particular, the British branch of Cypherpunks disliked the name
> >"Cypherpunks" so much that they used a different name for themselves, the
> >"U.K. Crypto Privacy Association." It doesn't seem to exist anymore, for
> >whatever reasons. But the name may have been a factor, at least.
>
> Note too that Brits differ from Americans. "Wired" worked well here from
> the beginning but has had problems there. Differing national characteristics.
>
> DCF
>
> "Let's all just agree to disagree. My system can thrive with widespread
> disagreement among rabid individualists --- can yours?"
>
>