From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 1995 15:35:59 +0800
To: Corey Bridges <corey@netscape.com>
Subject: Re: cool cpunk project proposal: "cpunk approved" logo
In-Reply-To: <199512282150.NAA10375@urchin.netscape.com>
Message-ID: <199512290136.RAA05099@netcom17.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>
>And not to poo-poo a nifty idea, but ultimately, I think that any c'punk
>cooperative effort like that is doomed to failure. Sure, people can manage
>to get together every month or so for a cypherpunk meeting (well, *I* can't,
>but I'm even more disorganized than most), but beyond that, things like
>official c'punk press releases, and official c'punk FAQs, and official
>c'punk seals of approval are just NOT going to happen and still be called
>Officially Cypherpunk. It's tough to have an "official" anything for a group
>that's not REALLY a group--just the name of a mailing list. 

you totally misunderstand my message. this is NOT an "official" project,
it is NOT a cooperative project. I am proposing that INDIVIDUALS undertake
the project under the cypherpunk name. no one has a right to complain
after all, when there is no *official* cypherpunk standard. really, I do
LOVE anarchy.

>Now, this doesn't stop Tim from creating his Cyphernomicon, and it doesn't
>stop other people on this list from issuing their own press releases. Nor
>should it stop you (and other interested parties) from issuing your seal of
>approval to worthy products. I just don't think it'll work to call it the
>Official Cypherpunk S-O-A.

I did not call it that. and in fact I of all people understand cypherpunk
psychology quite well, thank you very much. <g>

>
>Besides, the idea of having an official seal-of-approval sticker sounds like
>we're only one step away from having Cypherpunk action figures. ("New Eric
>Hughes figure with crushing logic grip! Detweiler with whirling Tentacles of
>Doom (tm)!")

not a bad idea imho.  <g>

but really, someone came up with a Big Brother Inside sticker without a
lot of whining about "officialness". all I am proposing is exactly the
same thing, except that it would have the word "cypherpunk" on it. what's
the difference? absolutely none. no one has any right to complain how
the cypherpunk name is used if there is no "official" cypherpunk
management.

but notice I was excessively careful never to imply there was anything
OFFICIAL the project. there is to be no collaboration or coordination
except that agreed to by participants. what could be simpler???

it's really ridiculous how much the word OFFICIAL is considered 
pornographic on this mailing list. I didn't use that word and went to
great lengths not to (and do so in ALL my mail to this list knowing the
hypersensitivity of its participants).

what I do object to is that because there is no OFFICIAL cypherpunk
standard that individuals cannot create one that they CALL official.
there is NOTHING stopping anyone from claiming they are running the
OFFICIAL cpunk FAQ or whatever as long as there is no OFFICIAL
cpunk management. what, is someone gonna sue? heh. no one has a 
right to complain!! why do I have to reiterate this obvious point?

the sword cuts both ways. or, that communication path is full duplex, 
so to speak.