Hallam-Baker demands more repudiations or he'll write!
bdavis at thepoint.net
Thu Sep 26 17:44:33 PDT 1996
On Thu, 26 Sep 1996, jim bell wrote:
> At 01:27 PM 9/26/96 -0500, Jean-Francois Avon wrote:
> >On 26 Sep 96 at 10:49, Brian Davis wrote:
> >> If by "operation effectiveness" you mean some people will be killed,
> >> I agree. I also agree with the fire/water comment (maybe in more
> >> ways than one!); my comment related to my belief that AP-supporters
> >> shouldn't complain about especially draconian measures taken against
> >> them by governments, given their modus operandi.
> >I don't think that any of them will complain because they understand
> >the nature of it. I think that Jim Bell (forgive me Jim...:) view
> >that there will be only limited retaliation from government is not
> >guaranteed at all. As I said somewhere previously, the whole thing
> >will depend on how the authorities view AP as (non-) attackable.
> >Here is the post I wrote earlier:
> >------- earlier post -------
> >jim bell recently wrote:
> >> Local police action against an AP organization would, of course, be
> >> deterred by the prospect of naming anybody who would go after it,
> >> and soliciting donations against them.
> >I don't agree here. It would all be a matter of timing, unless the
> >number of AP servers would be sprouting out faster than police forces
> >would be able to destroy them. You have to realize that if the money
> >is seized, noboby will be willing to make a hit since the odds of
> >being paid are not too good. Just play the game "Command and Conquer"
> >for a while and you'll see. Money is fuel. Don't run off of it!
> Uh, okay, I didn't mean to suggest that attacks would be entirely
> eliminated. (The term "deterred" really needed to be quantified there, even
> for a native English speaker.)
> But my main point was that (as evidenced by Brian Davis' unwillingness to
> acknowledge that the people who run the system will engage in illegality to
> stop AP) there is a certain hesitancy on the part of the "ruling class" to
> abandon at least the facade of legality that they often promote.
You have misinterpreted me or I was unclear. I don't doubt that, at some
point, the group of people who generally follow the rule of written law
might skip over some of the more restrictive parts of that law to combat
incessant violence. That is what I meant by "especially draconian
measures"; I know you agree that such a response is logical and proper
under the circumstances. :-)
> Jim Bell
> jimbell at pacifier.com
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy