Re: My Departure, Moderation, and "Ownership of the List"

[aga <aga@dhp.com>]

On Tue, 4 Feb 1997, Dave Hayes wrote:

> Steve Boursey writes:
> >   Well EFF itself is a lie--the were very well exposed by Wired Mag. a
> > while back as being nothing more than a corporate whore.  They represent
> > the interests of owners not consumers--the ACLU has been very open
> > in their critisism of the EFF in this regard.  A large corporation
> > waves some money in front of their noses and tells them to bend
> > over you can be sure they'll bend over.  
> 

Actually, the EFF is meaningless, and not worth discussing.
It was just a bunch of hippy faggots that got financed by the
greatfull dead, and since the greatfull dead died, the EFF should
just also die.  I mean come ON, with queers at the organization,
NOBODY is going to give it any credibility.

> It's not clear from where I sit that the EFF is intrinsically evil.  A

But it has John Gilmore there, and he is the evil censor.

> case can be argued for their initial good intentions followed by the
> subsequent poisoning of this intent by people with lots of money. Of
> course, -any- organization is as susceptable to infiltration as their
> weakest member.
> 
> > Respectable free speech advocates do not associate with EFF.
> 
> If one is going to advocate free speech, I strongly suggest one
> learns to deal with one's own greed and one's own need for power
> first. 

Greed and avarice may be bad, but wealth and control are good.
The power must always go to those who do not "need" it but who know
how to use it.  Not everybody is qualified to carry a gun.