At 5:14 PM 4/25/96, Hal wrote:
From: tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)
Well, I was not invited to join the elite and secret coderpunks list, but I still have some thoughts on coding and, especially, on the opportunities offered by Java.
As far as I know, the coderpunks list is neither secret nor elite. I joined it about a month ago, andd there wasn't any problem. Just send mail to majordomo@toad.com saying "subscribe coderpunks". It's just as easy as cypherpunks.
My reference was maybe a tad unfair. It was based on a reading of the hks archives of the coderpunks archives covering the December 1995 foudning. The hks archives no longer being available to me, I can't quote the specific messages, but the secretive and elite nature was discussed in the first dozen or so messages. Widespread knowledge of this list did not become available until February. My conclusion: keeping such a list secret and invitation-only for a couple of months, until L. Todd Masco let the cat out of the bag by announcing that hks was archiving it, is not a "cypherpunkish" thing to do. Having a list oriented toward code is fine, but keeping it elite and secret is a "cabal"-like thing to do. In my opinion, of course.
I do share Tim's concern about the political views of coderpunks subscribers. Despite the "punks" in the name it seems to be somewhat more of a mainstream group. Nevertheless I am determined to act as though the group favors unlimited access to privacy tools by individuals and to post under that assumption. If it comes to the point that someone complains there may have to be some air clearing but I don't think it's likely to come up.
I don't disagree _necessarily_ about separate lists. But I think some discussion beforehand would have been nice....were any of you reading this involved in such discussions? I know I wasn't, nor was there any public list discussion that I saw. There are lots of issues we could consider about future directions for our main group, or for sublists, etc. The "by invitation only" nature of the Coderpunks list, at least before the L. Todd Masco announcement of its existence, seems like rather a harsh way of avoiding off-topic posts. It does distress me that the main list is now so bogged down in back-and-forth flames, ad nauseum. And contrary to Perry straw man assertions, I have never argued for this as a desirable thing. My main objection to Perry's objections is that he rarely posts essays or work results, preferring instead to send "perrygrams" stating his unhappiness with some topic. My preference, and I think my posts generally show it, is to avoid "timgrams" saying a topic if off-charter and simply lead by example, as it were, by writing articles and essays I think are germane. Those who don't like my choice of topics are free to delete them. But this is a different thing than saying the current banality of the list discussion is _caused_ by me, as both Perry and Detweiler seem to think is the case. Basic errors of logic covered in Logic 101.
Cypherpunks continues to have a lot of vitality. What I object to most is the back and forth arguments people get into. I don't mind reading one message off-topic, but to have the thread drag on for days, with dozens of messages, is wasteful. People should just make their points and let them stand. They shouldn't feel they have to keep coming back and refuting the other guy.
I of course agree with Hal on this. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."