At 9:26 PM 3/14/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote:

Mr. Frantz, unless you can prove your claims here, forthwith, I must inform you that they are in violation of the Truth in Speech Act of 1996. Please retract them, now.

Political speech, not commercial speech. The act doesn't apply or is unconstitutional.

Do you see the problem?

Of course. Why do you think I said (in the 4th paragraph which you didn't quote) (ZING :-) ):

In thinking back over the discussion, I would like to eliminate the restrictions without making markets less free by adding yet more barriers to market entry. We certainly need more robust reputation agencies than we have now. I just don't know how to encourage their formation.

BTW - I consider non-free markets, produced primarily by oligarchic combines of large organizations to be a major impediment to removing government influence from the economic system. Easing market entry is one way to reduce the power of these oligarchic combines. I don't want to just trade elected government oppression for unelected corporate oppression. To put it bluntly, to suppress the 19th century coal mining strikes, the companies hired the Pinkertons. I don't see a whole lot of difference between this kind of private enterprise transaction, and Ruby Ridge. Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz@netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA