From: "Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger@lehman.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 93 14:18:57 PDT
To: tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)
Subject: Re: A Volunteer in a Suit Has Appeared!
In-Reply-To: <9304220831.AA26386@netcom.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <9304222118.AA05266@snark.shearson.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




I wonder, Tim, why you bother to wear clothes at all. After all, they
are merely attempts by conservative people to make you fit into a
conventional mold. Indeed, why speak in english? Why not invent your
own language that no one else understands? After all, using the same
language that other people do is a callow and conformist act.

In fact, why not just go to the top of a giant tower and get publicity
for us by shooting random passers by? After all, as you've noted,
there is no such thing as "bad publicity". I assure you that you will
be covered by thousands of times more TV and radio stations for such
an act.

I've watched the Libertarian Party self destruct because many
activists are such fools that they can't make a distinction between
whats important and random rebellion for the sake of rebellion. People
will refuse to be polite, refuse to phrase their arguments
comprehensably, refuse to be nice to reporters, and refuse to appear
to be reasonable or even rational, and then later on they wonder why
it is that everyone makes fun of them and no one listens.

Our goal is not to maintain use of the word "cypherpunks". Nor is our
goal to change the fashion industry. Our goal is privacy.

Tim agreed in his reply to my message with virtually every substantive
point that I made. None the less, he makes fun of my comments. He
agrees that people do judge on appearances. He agrees that the radical
protest movements of the 1960s were largely failures. Yet he wants us
to appear unreasonable, and he wants us to emulate these failures.

Tim has reacted with extreme vehemence to the minor question of our
name. Its a small thing to us personally -- but it could help advance
our goals. I can only conclude that since Tim more or less admits that
he's wrong but still insists on his position that he is not acting on
the basis of rational motivations.

I'll repeat -- this is not a fight that we can afford to lose. Why
machine gun ourselves in the feet?


Perry


Timothy C. May says:
> 
> I am pleased to announce that the Search Committee has found an Executive
> Director for the newly renamed "Privacy Institute." He will serve as both
> manager and as external spokesman for the Institute.
> 
> We searched for a respectable person, preferably middle-aged, who knew how
> to communicate with bureaucrats and was prepared to relocate to the
> Washington, D.C. area to act as our official lobbyist (the matter of his
> compensation will be dealt with in a later memo, one which also explains
> our dues structure. membership grades, and official bylaws).
> 
> Our candidate is an active poster in sci.crypt, is well-known to the Net,
> and yet has strong connections with the Washington bureaucracy.
> 
> We feel he will do much to project a more proper, even anal, image of our
> group. We hope his appointment as Executive Director, The Privacy
> Institute, will go a long way toward improving the image we developed
> during our first phase of existence when we were known by the c-word name.
> 
> Our new Director intends to immediately correct many of the wrongs he sees.
> 
> 
> Without further ado, here is his name:
> 
> 
> David Sternlight
> 
> 
> I hope you'll all join me in welcoming Sternie, or Sterno, as his friends
> call him, to the Privacy Institute.
> 
> 
> -Tim May, Recording Secretary, The Privacy Institute ("Don't call us
> Cypherpunks!")
> 
> 
> 
> (The preceeding spoof was brought to you as a public service.)
>