Re: InfoWarCon V 1996: Call For Papers

[winn@Infowar.Com]

Welcome!

I can't tell which of the two authors of ths following conversation is the more 
paranoid, but clearly at least 1 1/2 of them are totally wrong with their 
assumptions about 'agenda' and 'receptiveness' and 'one-upped.' It's so obscure, 
I don't know whether to take it seriously or not.

BUT - if you are serious about submitting, to an international audience, I 
suggest that you first:

	- Read "Information Warfare: Chaos on the Electronic Superhighway"
	- Get the Proceedings from InfoWarCon III, 1995 from 1.800.488.4595

and then make informed opinions and decisions.

We openly ebncourgae and welcome controversial subjects; that's why InfoWarCon's 
are so successful Fromthe sounds of it, no one else would have you.   <BG>

Make it intersting, cogent, contributory to the field, and meaningful. We will 
then take you seriously.

Thyanks for your thoughts!
Winn



On Sun, 17 Mar 1996, Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li> wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote:
>
>> At 11:01 PM 3/16/96 -0500, winn@Infowar.Com wrote:
>> >                   C A L L   F O R   P A P E R S 
>> >
>> >                          InfoWarCon 5, 1996
>> >           Fifth International Information Warfare Conference
>> >            "Dominating the Battlefields of Business and War"
>> >                         September 5-6, 1996
>> >                           Washington, DC
>> 
>> I'm wondering if I should bother re-writing my "Assassination Politics" 
>> essay into the form of a paper and submitting it to these people.  While it 
>> might nominally be considered right down their alley, from a subject 
>> standpoint, even a cursory look at the location (Washington, DC) and the 
>> invited people (large companies and military) suggest that my ideas would be 
>> just about as welcome as a yarmulke at a Nazi Party convention.
>
>It didn't take an analysis of the sponsor or even the forum to determine 
>this.
>
>> 
>> I'm not aware of the agenda (hidden or otherwise) of the sponsors, so 
>I don't know whether I should even bother.  Many people aren't 
>particularly appreciative of being "one-upped" (not to mention made 
>obsolete) so it's not clear that they'd give me the time of day. Any 
>ideas as to their receptiveness?
>
>I think you should keep your day job.  As to "one-upping" the key figures 
>in the field.  Good luck.
>
>Hey, you asked.
>
>> Jim Bell
>> jimbell@pacifier.com
>> 
>> 
>
>---
>My prefered and soon to be permanent e-mail address: unicorn@schloss.li
>"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
>Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
>00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
>
>
>
Peace
Winn

		        Winn Schwartau - Interpact, Inc.
		        Information Warfare and InfoSec
		       V: 813.393.6600 / F: 813.393.6361
			    Winn@InfoWar.Com