Timothy C. May wrote:
At 3:05 AM +1300 12/4/96, Paul Foley wrote:
So Tim May's silence in response to Vulis's nonsense, while some others came out in his favour "argues (not proves, just argues) heavily in favor of Dimitri" too? Yeah, sure! Wanna buy a bridge?
Actually, I've gotten several comments in e-mail to this effect, that if I'm not actively defending myself, maybe I'm guilty. Most were written roughly along the lines of:
[snippo]
As to the ramblings of Dale Thorn about how John Gilmore has an obligation to provide services on his machine, well, I gave up on Thorn a long time ago. (In fact, I seem to recall a Dale Thorn I killfiled years ago on the Extropians list...maybe I'm confusing his name with someone else, but it sure rings a bell.)
Since I wasn't on the Internet before, the answer is no. As to Dale insisting on Gilmore providing services, the answer to that is clear if you actually read my posts, which you apparently claim to have done, yet claim not to have done since you "gave up" a long time ago. Which is it, Tim? Tim May writes on certain topics a la "Crypto Anarchy and Virtual Communities" with a passion that is compelling, if not entirely convincing, yet this "leader of cypherpunks" is pitifully out of his element dealing with a truly rational person such as myself, since in Tim's universe, emotion seems to be the more desirable substitute. BTW, I never suggested guilt via not answering up to the list on any topic. I said it would have been clearer to the list subscribers if John had explained things himself instead of having a plethora of defenses coming from hacks like yourself, who don't represent John. If you, Sandy, and the other offenders *really* want to keep the noise down, then next time ask John directly for a reply, and if none is forthcoming, say to the list *once*, "John will not answer up", etc., and let the subscribers draw their own conclusions from the silence, instead of from your inane "defenses".