~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~