From: kelly@netcom.com (Kelly Goen)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 12:07:36 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Defending Free Speech and Liberty (fwd)
Message-ID: <9302192006.AA26951@netcom.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Forwarded message:
> From cypherpunks-request@toad.com Fri Feb 19 11:55:16 1993
> Message-Id: <9302191910.AA05405@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
> To: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
> Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
> Subject: Re: Defending Free Speech and Liberty 
> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 18 Feb 93 23:14:44 PST."
>              <9302190714.AA23494@netcom.netcom.com> 
> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 12:10:23 -0700
> From: "L. Detweiler" <ld231782@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
> X-Mts: smtp
> 
> [t.c. May]
> >I say, let's expand the scope of the Cypherpunks list to include more
> >discussion of viruses. We can't let it become a monopoly of the Authorities
> >(the Brunner Authority instead of the Turing Authority?)
> 
> I say, unless it has to do with cryptography, please don't. Does
> anybody else want a lot of virus articles on this list?  I found the
> original thug article a bit questionable, as I said. But a new list
> (viruspunks?) might be a good idea.
> 
 Count a vote in for viruspunks... I too wish to keep cipherpunks clean
even though I love viruses and I wish to have a pure thread about
applied crypto and anonymity techniques...

--