From: futplex@pseudonym.com (Futplex)
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 95 03:27:43 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Subject: Re: not a flame please read and think about this
In-Reply-To: <9509070626.AA07408@anon.penet.fi>
Message-ID: <9509071027.AA15077@cs.umass.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I feel it's my civic duty to respond to these things, but there's nothing
new here. NOISE.

an116512@anon.penet.fi writes:
> why is it that half the
> people who post here work for the government or big companies that are doing
> governments bidding

*sigh* This line gets trotted out every few months here, like clockwork.
You should look for similar threads in the archives. Allow me to sum them up
for you, meanwhile: who cares ?  Perhaps it's because the government and big
corporations have (surprise) flocks of people working for them. Your 
assertion that fully 50% of the posters to the list overtly work for such 
organizations is patently absurd, anyway.  

[...]
> what makes me wonder isnt so much that theyre here but that they post 
> socalled reasonable stuff that supports the  the government line.
> like when these people report on what the nsa guy says at the crypto
> convention as if were supposed to take it seriously

What alternative do you propose ?  Are we merely to chuckle and say, "Oh,
those guys at the NSA are such kidders. As if they actually had any
influence on public policy decisions in the U.S.  What a hoot !"  ?

> and these people who say clipper is good enough no back doors.
> and then everyone takes this crap seriously.

Eh ?  David Sternlight isn't openly on the list; whom do you have in mind ?

> obviously the government thinks there are some things we shouldnt think
> about ourselves. 

(Agreed)

> and then someone comes along and says theyve thought about
> it already and we should just go mind our own biz. arent we supposed to be
> cypherPUNKS? than why do we need these people to think for us?

Unless you can be more specific about this, I really have no idea to what and
whom it refers.

> honest replies only please. i dont mean to flame but this really bothers me. 

BTW, if not for this line I wouldn't even have bothered replying.

> we should maybe think about a closed list.

Feel free -- no-one is stopping you or anyone else from creating one. You 
could even announce it here. I'll still be here listening to Matt Blaze,
Jim Gillogly, Derek Atkins, Jeff Weinstein, et al. But then again I've
worked at a govt. lab too, so I guess I wouldn't be welcome on your list
either. Darn.

-Futplex <futplex@pseudonym.com>