From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Message Hash: 193ca0ec088a2b8781b9dbf76522c02e75ffdb634ac0e9776b5a1f2b052a0a59
Message ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960317032827.11248A-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
Reply To: <m0tyBuf-00090YC@pacifier.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-03-17 09:29:28 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 17:29:28 +0800
From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 17:29:28 +0800
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: InfoWarCon V 1996: Call For Papers
In-Reply-To: <m0tyBuf-00090YC@pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960317032827.11248A-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
On Sat, 16 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote:
> At 11:01 PM 3/16/96 -0500, winn@Infowar.Com wrote:
> > C A L L F O R P A P E R S
> >
> > InfoWarCon 5, 1996
> > Fifth International Information Warfare Conference
> > "Dominating the Battlefields of Business and War"
> > September 5-6, 1996
> > Washington, DC
>
> I'm wondering if I should bother re-writing my "Assassination Politics"
> essay into the form of a paper and submitting it to these people. While it
> might nominally be considered right down their alley, from a subject
> standpoint, even a cursory look at the location (Washington, DC) and the
> invited people (large companies and military) suggest that my ideas would be
> just about as welcome as a yarmulke at a Nazi Party convention.
It didn't take an analysis of the sponsor or even the forum to determine
this.
>
> I'm not aware of the agenda (hidden or otherwise) of the sponsors, so
I don't know whether I should even bother. Many people aren't
particularly appreciative of being "one-upped" (not to mention made
obsolete) so it's not clear that they'd give me the time of day. Any
ideas as to their receptiveness?
I think you should keep your day job. As to "one-upping" the key figures
in the field. Good luck.
Hey, you asked.
> Jim Bell
> jimbell@pacifier.com
>
>
---
My prefered and soon to be permanent e-mail address: unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
Return to March 1996
Return to “winn@Infowar.Com”