Wasting time and bandwidth on Bell

["P.J. Ponder" <ponder@wane-leon-mail.scri.fsu.edu>]

On Fri, 7 Jun 1996 08:29:56 -0400 (EDT), Declan McCullagh wrote:

>Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 6-Jun-96 Re: FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS
>by jim bell@pacifier.com 
>> Not quite yet, anyway.  I'm very disappointed to have waited over a 
>>year for 
>> some slick lawyer to show me how I'd be violating some law or another
>>to do so
...
>A few observations:

>1. Not many readers of cypherpunks are lawyers

I've noticed quite a few, actually.  I don't know how many are regular
readers but there seems to be enough to maintain a steady undercurrent of
legal thinking on the issues associated with digital commerce, some
anonymity and First Amendment issues, a sprinkling of criminal law topics,
and of course, banking, intellectual property, SEC, antitrust, general
contract, and related commercial law.

>2. Of the laywers who do read cypherpunks, many may not choose to spend
>their time researching what laws AP may violate. Or they're not "slick"
>lawyers; take your pick.

Or they automatically delete any posts that come from or relate to the 
puerile bullshit Bell is infamous for, and choose not to get dragged into 
this type of time- and bandwidth- wasting garbage.  Of which this post is 
just another, of course, but i get so damn sick and tired of the constant 
imposition of 'AP' and related nonsense on this list.  Of late, the 
trolls seems to be particularly effective among people who should know 
better, and an aura of credence or relevance has developed around some of 
this crap.  Can't we just ignore it, and move on?  Maybe if we ignore him 
he'll go away.

>3. Congress would have no problems passing a law outlawing AP, if one
>does not exist already.
>
>-Declan

I would be satisfied if they just outlawed e-mail about it.