My editorial in Oregonian newspaper published today.

[Jim Bell]

At 17:20 5/07/97 -0700, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
>JB's editorial is so mild-mannered I can barely resist comment.
>this from the JB we all know and love? this is so bland as to
>be almost PC, and frankly I agreed with every statement in
>it, virtually. how did he manage to avoid the label "assassination
>politics"? in fact how does he avoid the label "assassination"
>entirely? 

Hey, doofus, the article was 840 words long, 40 words longer than the length
recommended by the newspaper.  It ALSO avoids any mention of cryptography,
or digital cash, both of which would have not only just confused the average
newspaper reader, but  would have ballooned the article far past the length
that the newspaper could reasonably consider publishing.


>I think the main flimflammery in the essay is the concept of
>"criminal". JB always advocated in the past that merely being
>a bureacrat was virtually criminal, and that people would donate
>money toward their demise. 


Repeat same point above about length and detail.

>note to everyone: jim bell's editorial has virtually no relation
>to his past essays. I propose that someone send that newspaper
>his AP article.

They certainly had access to it.  The guy I talked to at the newspaper
claimed he had read it.


Jim Bell
jimbell at pacifier.com