From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 22:40:50 -0800 (PST)
To: Richard Fiero <rfiero@pophost.com>
Subject: Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.19970128213609.006dc248@pop.pophost.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.970128222115.6827U-100000@crl7.crl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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

C'punks,

On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Richard Fiero wrote:

> Get it straight Sandy Sandfort. I'm not in your home. I am in
> my home and I will observe my priorities, not your's.

Silly things happen when one responds literally to an obvious 
metaphor.  (see, "analogy.")

> ...In part I refer to a
> Sandy Sandfort reply to a criticism made by Paul Bradley. The reply was
> made public two hours before the criticism was.

Nonsense.  Richard may have read my response on the Unedited list
and Paul post on the Moderated list, but I sent my response to
each list in the appropriate order, Paul's post, followed by my 
response.  In any event, how would intentionally reversing the 
order have benefited me?  This specious argument makes no sense.  

> In the reply, Sandy Sandfort employs the name-calling "sophist"
> and "hypocrite."

Nope, wrong again.  I referenced sophistry and hypocracy.  I 
leave the significance of the difference as an exercise to the
student.  (Hint: one is an argument to the man, the other isn't.)

> Also in the reply is the Freudian slip or obscene proposition:
> > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  "Force," my ass. 
> Shouldn't this have gone to cypherpunks-flames?

And wrong yet again.  Not a personal attack but commentary on 
wooly thinking.
 
> One might wonder just what the rules of proper decorum are.

One might read my posts on this point and pay attention.


 S a n d y

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