1997-10-05 - Re: Stronghold

Header Data

From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 375cc2aedb3b90bc3b91354b79597b5638ebc1565923a177ea90ff0984634f3b
Message ID: <4iw3De14w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
Reply To: <1.5.4.32.19971004170309.006e6f6c@pop.pipeline.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-10-05 02:21:56 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 10:21:56 +0800

Raw message

From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 1997 10:21:56 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Stronghold
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19971004170309.006e6f6c@pop.pipeline.com>
Message-ID: <4iw3De14w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



John Young <jya@pipeline.com> writes:

> Dimitri Vulis reposted parts of the Stronghold/censorship
> drama:
>
> Dimitri:
>
> This replay continues your artful distortion of the exchanges,
> presumbly to make your best case, yet it still fails to explain
> your original beef with Stronghold.

Correct.  I even deleted one paragraph from the C2Net lawyer letter
which dealt with the nature of my claims.

> Perhaps this is unfair, but it now appears that you are using
> the disputed censorship issue to cloud your reluctance, or
> inability, to substantiate a fault in Stronghold.
>
> Send me the Stronghold fault, I'll be happy to add it to the
> other crypto-security stuff that wasn't supposed to be published.
>
> This is not meant to defuse the censorship matter, that's still
> live ammo.

Sorry, no, as this would likely cause C2Net to sue me, as they've threatened.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps






Thread