[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FW: Dr. Vulis is not on cypherpunks any more [RANT]
On Wed, 06 Nov 1996 21:43:51 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote:
Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> Dale is wrong. All access to Cypherpunks is via toad.com which
> sits in John Gilmore's home. (The basement office to be exact.)
Wrongo, Mr./Mrs. Argumentum ad Nauseam.
My computer is in fact in MY home, and my access is SOLELY through GTE.
You only send mail to/receive mail from GTE? How, then, are you reading
this, or sending the message to which I'm replying?
What a revelation! It's going through toad.com! *gasp*
> And here John has chosen to limit said forum. It is irrelevant
> how many subscribers perceive the list as public. It is private.
> Their misperception is in no way binding on John.
Perception is everything. And I never made a comment about "binding"
anything. Therefore, there is no misunderstanding.
Yes there is. I don't understand what you're saying.
Sandy wasn't quoting you ("binding") -- he said your (mis)perception
that the list is public doesn't affect what John can or cannot do with
his privately owned computer.
Try this at home: send email addressed to [email protected] with the
body "who cypherpunks". When you get a reply, save it in a file. OK,
you now have a list of who's subscribed to this list on your computer.
Is it your contention that you should not be allowed to edit or delete
this list? If you reply in the negative, why do you think that John
Gilmore shouldn't be allowed to edit his copy of this list?
> Some folks just don't have a clue. Just because they don't
> understand the nature of John's contribution, does not stop
> them from yammering.
And the people who agree with you are the only intelligent/clueful
people on this list?
Obviously.
Well, People can be clueful about different things, of course. On
this particular subject I can't see how you can reconcile a belief in
private property rights with your viewpoint. So, are you a
communitarian or an idiot? :-)
Your contention is acknowledged and rejected.
Your rejection is acknowledged and rejected :-) Facts are facts.
Whether you choose to accept them is irrelevant. Try "rejecting"
gravity for a while.
The only fact you've shown to demonstrate that it's private is that
John can manage it "anyway he wants", and/or shut it down at will.
Yes! The only fact necessary is that the equipment on which it's run
is private.
Well, the owners of Denny's can shut their places down whenever
they want to too.
Yes...another example of "private."
Matter of fact, the whole government can resign tomorrow and tell
you to do it yourself.
Most(?) people on this list would think they'd died and gone to heaven.
Imagine what would happen in the L.A. metro area if the truck drivers
who bring in food decided they didn't want to do so next week....
Are you saying they can't? Who prevents these truck drivers from
quitting, and what happens to those who try? What do you think would
happen?
> > You can argue until doomsday the "privacy of home" issue,...
> Since it is correct and unasailable, I believe I will.
Dale, apparently, doesn't think his home is private.
I think it more likely that Dale is simply being a hypocrite, though.
I'm sure he would maintain that his home is private as soon as the
homeless people under the bridge down the street decide to move in.
> > If you really agree with the ousting, I don't understand why
> > you're arguing so hard for the "private home" issue; would you
> > want to see a world someday where all Internet communications
> > are "controlled" by "private" individuals at "home"?
Would you really want to see a world where this is *not* the case?
--
Paul Foley <[email protected]> --- PGPmail preferred
PGP key ID 0x1CA3386D available from keyservers
fingerprint = 4A 76 83 D8 99 BC ED 33 C5 02 81 C9 BF 7A 91 E8
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Heavy, adj.:
Seduced by the chocolate side of the force.