1996-02-15 - Re: The Internet Party
Header Data
From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 6a54f660a0115bfbbd353b6cf831e2fa6789ba631c537dbfbda529f15188c9ea
Message ID: <Pine.ULT.3.91.960214221256.20610D-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
Reply To: <199602142101.NAA25866@well.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-02-15 13:31:21 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 21:31:21 +0800
Raw message
From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 21:31:21 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: The Internet Party
In-Reply-To: <199602142101.NAA25866@well.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.ULT.3.91.960214221256.20610D-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
I say we elect Jim Bell, then kill him.
More seriously (or maybe I was serious), an "Internet party" just makes
no sense to me. There's far too much diversity of views for the Internet
to be a "party." Perhaps the "Internet party" could take shape as a
corporatist pressure group, but hte record of corporatist systems is not
great.
I'm happy with the EFF and such remaining special interest groups with no
partisan political baggage. "No entangling alliances," as Washington
said, and no compromises.
-rich
Thread
Return to February 1996
- Return to “Brian D Williams <talon57@well.com>”
Return to “Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>”
- 1996-02-17 (Sat, 17 Feb 1996 16:22:07 +0800) - The Internet Party - Brian D Williams <talon57@well.com>
- 1996-02-15 (Thu, 15 Feb 1996 21:31:21 +0800) - Re: The Internet Party - Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>