[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: "This is not Coderpunks--we don't need no steenking cryptography!"

To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: "This is not Coderpunks--we don't need no steenking cryptography!"
From: Peter Monta <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 1996 14:27:43 -0800
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 21 Feb 1996 13:11:34 PST." <ad50b3ff09021004c04a@[205.199.118.202]>
Sender: [email protected]

Tim May writes:

> So, if anyone asks "What does this have to do with cryptography?!?!,"
> point out to him that this is Cypherpunks, not Coderpunks!

This is a reasonable distinction, and it's certainly the interface
between cryptography and social/net/monetary/freedom issues where
I find cypherpunks valuable.

Your laundry list is amusing, and I think the IPG debunking
traffic is useful, but sooner or later there has to be
effectively an "end of story".

Cheers,
Peter Monta   [email protected]
Qualcomm, Inc./Globalstar

References:
- "This is not Coderpunks--we don't need no steenking cryptography!"
  - From: [email protected] (Timothy C. May)

Prev by Date: "and two forms of ID"
Next by Date: Re: Credit card numbers
Prev by thread: "This is not Coderpunks--we don't need no steenking cryptography!"
Next by thread: Re: "This is not Coderpunks--we don't need no steenking cryptography!"
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread