[116618] in Cypherpunks
Re: What happened to Emily Dickinson posts (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Roach)
Mon Aug 16 14:31:31 1999
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 14:14:31 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990816131228.007a5550@mail.intplsrv.net>
From: Sean Roach <roach_s@mail.intplsrv.net>
To: Multiple recipients of list <cypherpunks@openpgp.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To: Sean Roach <roach_s@mail.intplsrv.net>
At 01:15 PM 8/16/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>Our Security computer printed 737 variable Cardano grilles
>from Dickinson On-line archives confirming Arnold claims.
>Tell doubters Reese and Roach.
>
> Thoth
Who said I doubted it? I don't care if a 19th century poet dabbled in
cryptography, any more than I care if a 20th century poed dabbled in
cryptography. Was she involved in its evolvolution? If not, why does it
matter that she used a recognized cryptography technique?
I don't even doubt that arnold is sincere in his claims. Although that a
professor should resort to such blatant ultimatums to shut up his
detractors cast some doubt on his professional standing in my eyes.
I was, as I stated before, angry that anonymous decided to throw blood to
the sharks and watch the chaos. My critisisms were to this extent. Also,
as I stated, I don't believe that anonymous has any more desire to hear
more about the different poems containing steganographic text than I do,
but merely had the desire to start a fight and saw requesting more messages
from arnold, who several people had asked, told, threatened, to shut up.
Obviously, had arnold, in response, resumed his arrested habit of posting
examples of poetry with stegano in it, it would cause a continuation of the
messages to shut up please/now/or else.
I don't doubt that you were able to verify arnolds claims, but ask
yourself, does it matter? It still doesn't refute my claim that the
request for more such posts was no more than an incitement to violence.
Sean
