<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.engin.swarthmore.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Nemickol ([email protected]) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Omar Haneef '96) writes:
> |>
> |> If punk is an anti-estabilishment attitude, and cyber- is a prefix that
> |> denotes the embracing of technology then cyberpunk should be an
> |> anti-estabilishment embracing of technology. However, I am not sure where
> |> the technology fits in with preventing punks from "rotting in their juices."
> |> i.e. if cyberpunk is like a technopunk with the fat trimmed then what part
> |> of the cyberpunk attitude helps the cyberpunk be more than "just" a punk?
> |>
> |> -OH
> |>
>
> I am going to attempt to tread *very* lightly here.
> Do you know any punks Omar? I mean *punks*.
> Not Greed Day or Jerk-Offspring garbage gen-X
> fools, but punks.
> They hate things. They want to bring it all down.
> They want to build things up the way they see fit.
> They have great ideas, wonderful plans, strong ideology.
> They don't give a shit about anything.
> Many of them drink too damn much.
> A lot of them dont think beyond buying the next vinyl.
>
> They fail to carry out their plans.
> We understand technology and how to make it serve us.
>
> And then we get things done.
What you are saying makes sense to me. I see how your explanation of
cyberpunk fits in with the books and the term. But Nightfly seems to have a
different account of cyberpunk. Or are you guys not concerned that your
fellow cyberpunk has a different idea of what you are "about"?
-OH
[Next appendix] | [Return to index for Appendix A8] | [Return to index for Appendix A]