Connie Sadler <sadler_c@hosp.stanford.edu> writes: <I find lines like the above very offensive/non-professional. I
won't let it stop me from continuing on, but what's the point? I really don't get it.
CypherPUNKs is an offshoot of the cyberpunk paradigm, which can be stated as "high tech/lowlife". There are no claims of professionalism as far as I know. If cypherpunks share a common attribute, it is probably their enjoyment of the _practice_ of encryption and related disciplines. I did not notice anyone insult you personally. Surely if you find the language offensive, the solution is to filter your mail, or else unsubscribe. -- Alex Brock
Cyber City says:
CypherPUNKs is an offshoot of the cyberpunk paradigm, which can be stated as "high tech/lowlife".
Huh? Where did you get that idea? So far as I know, the name was picked because it was catchy because the word "cyberpunk" was already in use. Most of us are not "punks" in any real sense of the word (although of course some might be; there are people on this list with dozens of different points of view and lifestyles). I'm not an "offshoot" of anything, certainly not of a William Gibson novel, and beyond all that, the notion that "cyberpunk" was something real and not just a term for a style of SF novel has very little support to it outside of certain cheap flashy magazines. Perry
C'punks, Okay, I'm getting just a little tired of this thread. I've addressed several posts in private e-mail, but I think one public statement is required. On Fri, 22 Jul 1994, Alex Brock, addressing Connie Sadler, wrote:
. . . CypherPUNKs is an offshoot of the cyberpunk paradigm, which can be stated as "high tech/lowlife". There are no claims of professionalism as far as I know. If cypherpunks share a common attribute, it is probably their enjoyment of the _practice_ of encryption and related disciplines.
Yet another list member volunteers to speak for the group. If Alex want to be a "low life," so be it. Just don't drag the rest of us along. I thought Cypherpunks were interested in taking positive steps to protect privacy. Connie has told us she shares that goal, so I think that makes her just as much a Cypherpunk as the rest of us "lowlifes."
I did not notice anyone insult you personally. Surely if you find the language offensive, the solution is to filter your mail, or else unsubscribe.
By the same token, Alex, nobody personally pulled your chain, either. Maybe you should filter Connie from your mail, or else unsubscribe. My fellow Cypherpunks, "can't we all just get along?" Let's continue to focus on privacy. Isn't that what we're here for? S a n d y P.S. I've exchanged e-mail with Connie. She's very nice and very much on our side. A good recruit for Cypherpunks.
participants (3)
-
cyber1＠io.org -
Perry E. Metzger -
Sandy Sandfort