Re: [NOISE]-- [PHILOSOPHYPUNKS] Re: The House Rules At The Permanent Virtual Cypherpunks Party

[Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>]

Bryce wrote:
> > I made note to this list time and time again requesting that people not
> > state the obvious - who owns what hardware and what rights they have to
> > pull the plug or whatever.  I seriously doubt that even the least
> > intelligent cypherpunk would misunderstand such a thing. Do you really
> > believe that myself and other cypherpunks want to "seize" John's equip-
> > ment, morally or otherwise?  You are correct about certain issues being
> > complex, but one of the big failings of the crowd who supported Gilmore
> > on this action was their failure to understand the point I've made here -
> > that we *do* understand basic property rights, etc.

> Ah.  Then we are in agreement here.  My "Rule" in the House
> Rules etc. simply stated the obvious fact, for the benefit of
> those who need it stated, of Gilmore's sole authority over the
> physical substrate.  I vaguely recall some subscribers implying
> or stating otherwise during the vanish Vulis fracas.  It would
> not at all surprise me if some people disagreed with this
> simple premise--  they habitually do so with regard to "public"
> establishments like bars and restaurants, and it isn't much of
> a stretch to start thinking of cypherpunks as a similarly
> "public" institution.

*We* are not in agreement.  If you insist on arguing that, I'll have to
resort to the "Spock" clarification (a la Star Trek), that it's not merely
what you say I object to, it's you I object to.