From: Clint Barnett <cbarnett@eciad.bc.ca>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 17:58:57 -0800 (PST)
To: Murray Hayes <mhayes@infomatch.com>
Subject: Re: Why is cryptoanarchy irreversible?
In-Reply-To: <199611120841.AAA16334@infomatch.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.3.91.961117175306.2712G-100000@oswald>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



or possibly a tube of epoxy to keep the cards together permanently, a few 
armed friends/sycophants to keep watch on the house of cards, perhaps a 
few mentally unbalanced people to kidnap or assasinate Person B's friends 
and family, some Marketing and PR men to drum up public support for the 
existance of the house of cards and make people think that it's good and 
deserves to be there, and on and on and on...

couldn't we all just get along?

clint barnett
lord of the cosmos
emily carr institute

On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Murray Hayes wrote:

> On Fri, 08 Nov 1996 14:46:56 +0100, Matts Kallioniemi wrote:
> 
> >At 17:12 1996-11-07 -0800, jim bell wrote:
> >>Simple analogy:  Suppose you put two people into a room with a deck of 
> >>playing cards and a table, instructing "Person A" to build a house-of-cards, 
> >>and telling "Person B" to stop him from achieving his goal.  Who do you 
> >>think will win?  Obviously, the latter will win:  It's vastly easier to 
> >>knock such a structure down than to build it in the first place,  and all 
> >>"Person B" has to do is occasionally take a whack at the structure. 
> >
> >What if Person A is better armed? Could that change the outcome?
> >
> >
> >
> 
> What if person A has a pack of chewing gum?
> 
> 
> mhayes@infomatch.com
> 
> It's better for us if you don't understand
> It's better for me if you don't understand
>                                              -Tragically Hip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>