At 08:15 AM 6/5/97 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:

Accepting public money does increase the criminal and civil obligations of the recipient as well as providing a lever for 3rd parties to become involved on civil grounds.

I'm not sure how I can get this idea through.

You're not doing very well. I can see a number of possible meanings: 1) You want to be able to "picket" other people's net traffic, and think that the amount of government funding out there gives you some standing to force some parts of the net to carry your "picket signs". And therefore you keep posting similar vigorous assertions, in response to other people's contentions that this would be bad. 2) You do/don't/don't-care think it's a good idea, but you're trying to make the point that it _is_ theoretically something the government could require, and are trying to get people to accept this concept while they're arguing either that it would be bad, or that it's not something they could require. 2b) As above, but you're further contending that, to be consistent, the government _must_ apply their standards for picketing, union elections, etc., to the Internet (again, regardless of whether you think this is good, bad, or ugly.) 3) You think that it would be OK for a service provider to do this (whether or not you think it's a good idea) and are contending that it's ok, while you think other people are arguing that it's not ok. 4) You want to accomplish something _like_ picketing, and think that intercepting the picketee's traffic is required, as opposed to other picketing-like methods available, and are trying to get agreement? Is one of these your point? Or is it something else, and I just don't get what you're point is? To me, it looks like you're just asserting the same stuff repeatedly, and it's not clear why.... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts@ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list or news, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)