From: "Patrick J. LoPresti" <patl@catfish.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 95 14:37:03 PDT
To: tcmay@sensemedia.net (Timothy C. May)
Subject: Re: "Cypherpunks Write Code" as a Putdown
In-Reply-To: <ac3406e80c0210045a87@[205.199.118.202]>
Message-ID: <199507202136.RAA22319@catfish.lcs.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

I have already explained my comments in another thread, but I figure I
should respond to this anyway.

>>>>> "tcmay" == Timothy C May <tcmay@sensemedia.net> writes:

 tcmay> At 5:25 PM 7/20/95, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
 >> If it is ever feasible to do what you suggest, someone will do it;
 >> your musings will have no effect on that.  If you want to make a
 >> difference, try writing some code yourself...

 tcmay> In my posting on why I think Netscape and related operating
 tcmay> environments represent the likeliest targets for widespread
 tcmay> crypto use (the "big win" I used in my title), I did not whine
 tcmay> that others ought to write code for me.  I said that this is
 tcmay> where users were going in massive numbers.

That is not all you said; you also suggested that existing interfaces
for "Tin, Pine, Elm, Joe, Emacs, etc." were a waste of time.

 tcmay> Take it or leave it, as an analysis, but the "try writing some
 tcmay> code" is a meaningless insult.

I have apologized for the insulting tone, but I do not feel the
comment was meaningless.  If you are going to criticize my development
efforts, I think it is fair for me to ask, "And what have *you* done?"

The point being, of course, that the criticism itself is unwarranted;
not to make a meaningless insult.

 tcmay> In short, the insulting tone of many Cypherpunks these days is
 tcmay> saddening.

It was a specific response to an insult of my (and others') work.
Again, I apologize.

 tcmay> I plan to continue to speak my mind, to point out what I think
 tcmay> are the more important routes to a desirable future, and to
 tcmay> criticize what I think are dead ends and ghettoized
 tcmay> approaches.

I would hope you would keep the forward-looking vision while ditching
the critical tone.  Those "ghettoized approaches" are the best we have
at present, and they are responsible for the widespread use of PGP,
such as it is.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.3beta, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQCVAwUBMA7MWnr7ES8bepftAQHgRQP+O60BcHGWSiUETnePX9DrzDKOBfA7VNPB
900twzEO+o21RVBGMePn3zCc2Z70ejsKmgndH/EN74SWt9Ot03BWyWzIFj67BVua
GhWhuyeBXTBGe3ZzfKFTmNUqKNQocj5UxD6CDj/2O5powYjYLCzKBHZTI3UGyE57
MjBY/YclZRw=
=FPXO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----