Why not read the judges rulling? http://wood.ccta.gov.uk/courtser/judgements.nsf/054a30dbaca8b75e8025683c004e 82de/45de924a70f2270b802568690055b06c/$FILE/godfrey3.htm A payment into court of a derisory sum is a standard tactical legal maneuver. It does not involve any admission of liability. David Theroux began name calling, specifically everyone who does not accept his theory must do so out of ignorance. Matthew's selective editing of my posts deliberately misrepresents my argument. I simply stated that the following argument is bogus: 1) I am an expert on X 2) The subject matter of X is so complex that nobody who is not an expert can legitimately comment on it 3) Therefore all assertions I make in the field of X MUST be considered true 4) Therefore all assertions you make in the field of X MUST be considered false Theroux did not even attempt to justify his argument, he merely restated it and claimed that anyone who disagrees with his is a complete fool. I don't think that any field has the right to such defference. I can explain my argument to a lay audience. Theroux either cannot or will not. I suggest that in either case his argument MUST be rejected. Phill
-----Original Message----- From: lizard [mailto:lizard@mrlizard.com] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 12:27 PM To: Matthew Gaylor Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker; fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu; cypherpunks@cyberpass.net; Colin A. Reed; Ken Brown; CYBERIA-L@listserv.aol.com; David Theroux Subject: Re: Independent Institute Response To Phillip Hallam-Baker("network externality")
Yeah, but Godfrey is responsible for forcing a very damaging-to-free-speech ruling down the throats of UK ISPs. Methinks he deserveth what he gets.
And to add more fuel to the fire -- Phill, a PhD in nuclear physics makes you no more competant to understand *economics* than a PhD in Medevial European History makes you competant to run a nuclear power plant. You are one of the last people I'd expect to fall into the trap of assuming 'brainz iz brainz' and that achievement in one field makes you qualified to pontificate on others. (I, personally, have acheived nothing in *any* field, hence, I am equally qualified to pontificate on all fields.)