cypherpunks vs. nambypambypunks and cyphercranks

[L. Detweiler]

(For this I move out of my vitriol vein, to dish out something
non-overly-`stinging' even though it *could* be deadly.)

P. Metzger:
>We can't afford to lose this fight. This is a matter of life and
>death. Playing out fantasy games about being 1960s radicals is fine
>and well -- when you don't care about the outcome. We can't afford to
>lose, so we can't afford to emulate losing strategies.

Mr. Metzger, surely you realize you can call yourself anything you like
in the mainstream media. However, I was attracted to this list
precisely because of the name, find it highly descriptive and apropos,
and I think trying to change it is counterproductive, superfluous, and
highly disillusioning, and am becoming increasingly annoyed with
attempts to do so.  I will proudly wear the banner of `cypherpunk' even
if it becomes an epithet.

You seem to take it as given that `punk' has negative connotations, but
I assure you that it has a distinct ingredient of allure in the public
consciousness.  Less colorful terms would only provoke blandness and
sabotage the vigor of our cause. Young leaders of the American
Revolution would aptly be deemed ``punks'' by the robe-cladded
wig-wearing British establishment, had the term been around...  Nathan
``Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death'' Hale was quite a punk...

The list is private. People can choose to present themselves in public
any way they like. If they prefer to say that they belong to the
"cryptoprivacy group," fine.  But I believe you are deliberately
ignoring the fundamental underlying personalities of people who are
members of the list in your irritating, noisy, and desperate advocation
to change the name.  In fact, this agenda seems to me very much like
someone trying to impose leadership on anarchy.

Join EFF or CPSR; they seem to think like you do.

``Obviously, to partake in a revolution, one must, by definitition, at
the very minimum, be nonconforming with and disrespectful of the status quo.''