From: Declan McCullagh <declan@pathfinder.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 22:27:30 +0800
To: Blanc <blancw@cnw.com>
Subject: Re: Stewart Baker on Bernstein encryption decision (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.19970827181010.00a72d74@cnw.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970828100828.25764F-100000@cp.pathfinder.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



I share part of the blame here; I forwarded Baker's message to
cypherpunks.

I should point out that Baker is an interesting fellow. Check out his
article on Japan's crypto export ctrls in last Oct? Wired. He currently
represents Netscape; he's one of two lawyers in DC who does.

-Declan


On Wed, 27 Aug 1997, Blanc wrote:

> V.Z.Nuri wrote, in reaction to Stewar Baker's message:
> 
> >*spit* [...] fraudulent camel's back. soon let the whole corrupt 
> >structure fall like the rotten house of cards that it is.
> [...]
> >SOME PEOPLE JUST DON'T GET IT, even as they
> >wallow daily in their own hypocrisy.
> >
> >[...]the horrid and repulsive episode [...]
> >when in the course of human events it become necessary to expunge a 
> >parasite...
> [...]
> >(if so, it would be the one of the least vile and sleazy tactics employed
> >so far in the whole sorry affair.)
> >
> >[...] sarcastic contempt I feel for you and your despicable cohorts [...]
> ..........................................
> 
> 
> Like, have you tried to export software lately, L.D.?   You're taking this
> rather personally.
> 
> Your heart-felt, warm&fuzzy  message to Mr. Baker, who doesn't know you
> from anyone (except that you posted from that scum-bag pot of
> cypherpunk-infestation (those poisonous tentacles of Medusa), I'm sure will
> instill in him a deep regret for his past attitude; he'll probably recant
> his past, become a born-again Christian, and join the list.    
> 
> Eloquent, informative statements from other noteworthy representatives of
> the technology industry, spoken even at meetings where Mr. Baker was
> personally present, and even directly to him by the likes of TCM, could
> not, I'm sure be as persuasive as the *spit*ting and lowly modifying terms
> which you slew in his direction.
> 
> An intellectually uplifting debate on the subject, bringing into view
> incontestable points of fact, could not surely be as convincing as this
> upchuck of verbiage from deep within yourself, where you keep your stash of
> special words selected for their ability to clarify difficult issues.
> 
> Goodness, next you'll be agreeing with TCM that "they should all be nuked".
>   You might even begin consider a special venue for achieving this, such
> as.........Blacknet?
> 
> 
> 
>     ..
> Blanc
> 
>