[REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News

[Dave Hayes]

> I am amused. I gave Dave Hayes about an 8.5 out of 10 on the scale of
> meaningless political rants.

Is this another way of saying you do not understand, since you
can attribute no meaning? 

> * "Political safety?" I stand by my record as a writer. Check out
> http://www.eff.org/pub/Publications/Declan_McCullagh/ for some of my
> recent articles. Political safety? Hardly.

It never ceases to amaze me how human beings think in terms of
indoctrination and repetition. (Isn't that repetitive too?) 

In this example, previous works are cited as reasons why a current
work is or is not something. As most people in probability theory can
tell you, the chance of something being true has nothing to do with
the results of previous trials. 

In other words, your record is irrelavent. I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

> * Dave says "Notice that the net is compared to a home or private club." 
> Wrong. I never compared the Net to such. However, a mailing list run on a
> computer in someone's home with his own cash is very similar to a private
> club.  

And you say you aren't comparing the net to a home or club? Aren't 
mailing lists on the net? Aren't you comparing them to a club? 
Or are you merely being unclear about your comparisons? 

> * Contrary to what you seem to be asserting, Gilmore hasn't blocked Vulis
> from posting. 

What seems to be often isn't. I am not asserting any such thing. In
fact, Mr. Gilmore hasn't done anything of note since Vulis still gets
mail off the list...it's more symbolic. Interestingly enough, the only
"damage" I see is to Mr. Gilmore's reputation. This is hardly a loss
in my opinion, but I assume it means something to a reporter...

> * Dave warns us to consider "what would happen if one parent company owned
> *all* communications media." Then we have problems. I've written about
> this in an Internet Underground magazine column. However, this is not the
> case now. 

It does not have to be the case for you to see the intended point,
which you apparently missed. I'll say it again: Ownership should not
be a license for censorship. 

> Or are you arguing the government should get involved and force
> Gilmore to allow Vulis on his list?

No. That would be the same thing in a different guise. Please read my
article again and attempt to comprehend what I am saying. It would
truly help your comprehension if you failed to react in a Pavlovian
manner to it.

> By the way, if you haven't figured it out yet, Mr. "Freedom Knight of
> Usenet,"  a private mailing list is NOT Usenet. Get a clue. 

The clue to be gotten is yours. I never implied or intended such a
misunderstanding.
------
Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave at jetcafe.org 
Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet

A philosopher called on Nasrudin and found him away from home. Infuriated, 
he wrote 'Stupid Oaf' on his door. As soon as Nasrudin got home and saw this,
he rushed to the philosopher's house. "I'd forgotten", he said, "that you 
were to call. And I apologize for not having been at home. I remembered 
our appointment as soon as I saw that you'd left your name on my door..."