From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 95 08:09:54 PDT
To: an116512@anon.penet.fi
Subject: Re: not a flame please read and think about this
In-Reply-To: <9509070626.AA07408@anon.penet.fi>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950907074029.24168A-100000@crl.crl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Thu, 7 Sep 1995 an116512@anon.penet.fi wrote:

> why is it that half the
> people who post here work for the government or big companies that are doing
> governments bidding (rand.org (which is part of the the nsa!) att.com (makers of the clipper chip)
> mit (which onwns rsa)
> netscape etc etc)

I doubt the statistics and I don't see how mere employment with
the above somehow disqualifies one for having a regard for 
privacy.  In many cases, they have a much better grasp of the
threat than the rest of us.

> what makes me wonder isnt so much that theyre here but that they post socalled
> reasonable stuff that supports the  the government line.

This is nonsense.  Please give some examples of the sycophantic
posts you claim supports "the government line."

> like when these people report on
> what the nsa guy says at the crypto convention as if were supposed to take it
> seriously and these people who say clipper is good enough no back doors.
> and then everyone takes this crap seriously.

Who?  When?  To which "everyone" do you refer?

> . . . arent we supposed to be
> cypherPUNKS?

What the hell is that supposed to mean?  The name was given and
accepted in jest.  I'm not aware of any special PUNK 
qualifications.  Please elucidate.

> than why do we need these people to think for us?

The Cypherpunks I know certainly don't; sorry to hear about you.

Are you planning to show up at Saturday's anniversary meeting
again, Larry?


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~