Re: Sandy and the Doc

[Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Sun, 19 Jan 1997, Toto wrote:

>   If you are going to define the words you are using, then
> perhaps you should define them a little more specifically
> and back them up with specifics, rather than use them as
> out-of-context, vague declarations.
>   Black's Law Dictionary defines 'prejudice' as: A forejudgment;
> A leaning towards one side of a cause for some reason other
> than a conviction of its justice.

First, I did not use it as a legal term of art, so a legal 
dictionary is not appropriate.  Second, I see no sustantive 
difference between "forejudgment" and my shorthand version 
(pre-judge).  Third, I wrote "literal."  Examine the etimology of 
the word for it's literal meaning.  It's pretty obvious AND
specific [ME.; OFr, /prejudice/ (Fr. /prejudice/); L praejudicium/,
from /prae/, before, and /judicium/, a judgment, from /judex/,
/judicgis/, a judge.]  In other words, to pre-judge.  Get it?
 
>   As far as figuring out, to everyone's satisfaction, just
> what constitues a 'flame', good luck, since everyone seems
> to have a different definition.

I have no intention nor duty to satisfy everyone.  That is not
possible.  I will use a "reasonable person" test.  (I am, by the 
way, using this in the legal term of art sense.)

>   Personally, I have no problem with someone telling me "You're 
> full of shit.", rather than, "Sir, I believe you are in 
> error."  Others, having played less hockey, might have 
> gentler sensibilities.

Other folks on this list seem to have other opinions.  That's why
there are horse races.  I don't like it, but Toto are free to 
wallow in it if he chooses.

>   I hope that your efforts towards decreasing the list's level
> of blatantly offensive crapola will not lead towards reducing
> the CypherPunks' tendencies to be outspokenly strong in their
> convictions.

Somehow, I don't think that will be a problem, as this debate 
has demonstrated.

>   Cryptography is going to be an increasingly important issue
> in all areas of life in our electronically-global future, and
> without serious discussion of the issues that go hand-in-hand
> with its development, then the 'numbers' and the technology
> behind them have little real meaning.

I totally agree with this not-full-of-shit position.  Toto and I,
unlike some others, seem to agree on the importance of crypto.
We only seem to have a problem with how best to discuss the 
issues.  It's a start.


 S a n d y

P.S.	I talked to Gilmore about the holdup in getting
	started.  He has been too busy to get the tech
	side going, but when he does, (a) everyone will
	be notifed as to the start date, and the test
	will still run for an entire month.  Until then,
	it is (sadly) business as usual.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~