From: Mac Norton <mnorton@cavern.uark.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 95 19:31:38 PDT
To: Duncan Frissell <frissell@panix.com>
Subject: Re: CYPHERPUNK considered harmful.
In-Reply-To: <199509131926.PAA14458@panix.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950913212637.29344J-100000@cavern>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I don't know about national characteristics.  After all,
"What's in a name?  Would a rose by any other name..."
and so on.

Cypherpunk fits.  Cypherpunk suits.  So, if the
suit fits...

MacN

On Wed, 13 Sep 1995, Duncan Frissell wrote:

> At 10:57 AM 9/13/95 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote:
> 
> >While I have had some qualms about the name, on balance I think it has been
> >good for us. After all, it's not as if _other_ groups don't already exist!
> >In particular, the British branch of Cypherpunks disliked the name
> >"Cypherpunks" so much that they used a different name for themselves, the
> >"U.K. Crypto Privacy Association." It doesn't seem to exist anymore, for
> >whatever reasons. But the name may have been a factor, at least.
> 
> Note too that Brits differ from Americans.  "Wired" worked well here from
> the beginning but has had problems there.  Differing national characteristics.
> 
> DCF
> 
> "Let's all just agree to disagree.  My system can thrive with widespread
> disagreement among rabid individualists --- can yours?"
> 
>