Re: Siegel and Lewis

[pcw@access.digex.net (Peter Wayner)]

>
>Peter also did little to interview anyone with substantial standing in
>the internet community about what C&S were doing -- a quote or two
>from an old net hand like a Gene Spafford or someone of that ilk might
>have been valuable. As it was, he didn't produce much to counter the
>viewpoint that they were the victims rather than the victimizers.

Geez, thanks. He quoted me in an article on the C&S problem long ago. 
I had a legitimate beef because my service provider dutifully kept
many empty newsgroups around just in case someone discovered them.
C&S did and I literally spent 2 hours unsubscribing from all of them.
I seem to remember that he quoted me as being really inconvenienced,
which is pretty much what happened to everyone else. 
>
>I think it is only because the "paper of record" published articles
>that made them look like their point of view had any merit at all that
>they managed to survive this long. As it is, the Tennessee Bar is
>looking in to whether they have committed any new ethical
>violations. I'd say, of course, that they had...

You are correct, though, about this. They seem to draw much more 
unsuspicious attention then a pair of disbarred attornies should
get. Of course, all attornies deserve caution and suspicion. 
>
>Perry