1996-02-22 - Re: “This is not Coderpunks–we don’t need no steenking cryptography!”
Header Data
From: Peter Monta <pmonta@qualcomm.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 1f9ec2799666937043664a417948e196a8df4fbc059bbdb63c3392d4d7aecd2e
Message ID: <199602212227.OAA14459@mage.qualcomm.com>
Reply To: <ad50b3ff09021004c04a@[205.199.118.202]>
UTC Datetime: 1996-02-22 03:24:30 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 11:24:30 +0800
Raw message
From: Peter Monta <pmonta@qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 11:24:30 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: "This is not Coderpunks--we don't need no steenking cryptography!"
In-Reply-To: <ad50b3ff09021004c04a@[205.199.118.202]>
Message-ID: <199602212227.OAA14459@mage.qualcomm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Tim May writes:
> So, if anyone asks "What does this have to do with cryptography?!?!,"
> point out to him that this is Cypherpunks, not Coderpunks!
This is a reasonable distinction, and it's certainly the interface
between cryptography and social/net/monetary/freedom issues where
I find cypherpunks valuable.
Your laundry list is amusing, and I think the IPG debunking
traffic is useful, but sooner or later there has to be
effectively an "end of story".
Cheers,
Peter Monta pmonta@qualcomm.com
Qualcomm, Inc./Globalstar
Thread
Return to February 1996
- Return to “Alex Strasheim <cp@proust.suba.com>”
- Return to “Peter Monta <pmonta@qualcomm.com>”
Return to “tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)”
- 1996-02-21 (Thu, 22 Feb 1996 05:58:59 +0800) - “This is not Coderpunks–we don’t need no steenking cryptography!” - tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May)
- 1996-02-22 (Thu, 22 Feb 1996 11:24:30 +0800) - Re: “This is not Coderpunks–we don’t need no steenking cryptography!” - Peter Monta <pmonta@qualcomm.com>
- 1996-02-22 (Thu, 22 Feb 1996 20:02:41 +0800) - Re: “This is not Coderpunks–we don’t need no steenking cryptography!” - Alex Strasheim <cp@proust.suba.com>