From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 1996 03:12:53 +0800
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Subject: Re: [Yadda Yadda Yadda] Re: 5th protect password?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960421034850.21453C-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960421084606.11213A-100000@crl11.crl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

> On Sat, 20 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote:
> 
> > amendment.  I'm sure a REAL LAWYER (TM) reading this note will cite the 
> > first known example of a handwriting example being demanded by a court.  
> > What do you want to bet that it first occurred in this century?

To which Black Unicorn responded: 

> I have US$ 50,000 that says it didn't.  Care to take me up on it?

Though I think the wager offered way out of line, I wish that 
this mechanism for handling disputes were used more often on the
Cypherpunk list.  It's easy for folks to shoot their mouths off 
when they can do so at virtually zero cost.  The results are 
endless flame wars with only rare resolution.  When money is at 
stake, there is an incentive to be more temperant in ones claims.

I would be interested to see if Jim Bell and Black Unicorn could
engage in a "friendly" wager on the question in point for the
nominal sum of, say, US$100.  Perhaps they can cooperate to frame
their dispute in unambiguous terms, mutually agree upon an escrow
agent and pick a referee or other resolution mechanism to decide 
their "case."  Wouldn't that be something?

By the way, gentlemen, I'm not kidding.  Everyone on this list
could use a respite from all the "yes-it-is-no-it's-not" posts
among various combatants engaged in "how-many-angels..." spats.


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~