Re: Netscape download requirements

[David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com>]

At 10:40 AM -0700 7/20/96, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>
>On Sat, 20 Jul 1996, David Sternlight wrote:
>
>> But Con Law is a bit off topic for this group, eh? Let's agree
>> to disagree.
>
>Sure, I'll let you wiggle out of a discussion in which you were
>previously all to willing to participate.

No wiggling involved. I think I refuted you decisively but recognize that
we've reached the point of diminishing returns for this group and that a
discussion focussing mostly on the interpretation of Constitutional
mechanics would be by and large off topic here. I was attempting to be
considerate, not evasive. I'll take it as far as you like (within the
bounds of civility) via e-mail.

> I don't think, though,
>that you should get off the hook so easily for your amazing--and
>unsupportable assault on free speech, to wit:
>
>> nor do YOU get to tell them that they are poor benighted fools
>> who should agree with YOUR views on civil liberties. To assert
>> otherwise is fascism, authoritarianism, dictatorship, pick one.
>
>I'd appreciate it if you would defend, retract or "explain" why
>I don't get to tell ANYONE that they should agree with my views
>of civil liberties.  This is the third time I've addressed your
>curious statement.  Please explain yourself.

Glad to explain it. I used "tell" in the sense of compel, not in the sense
of expressing one's opinion. "Joe told us what to do" is different from
"Joe expressed his opinion of what we should do" in the sense I used it.

Thanks for asking;
David