Bomb Law Reporter - special edition

[Reese]

At 06:05 AM 8/18/2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
 >At 05:37 AM 8/18/01 -1000, Reese wrote:
 >>Strangely, my dignity was not offended, I think yours is.  That you
 >>came (heh) to Aimee's defense indicates what, exactly?
 >
 >Paranoia becomes you.

"I get paid to be paranoid when there is nothing to be paranoid about."

You might consider the alternative.

 >I didn't "come to Aimee's defense" -

A matter of conjecture.  You stepped forward and responded to me, when
you had not been responding to me earlier.  When I presented her with
some very difficult questions and called her on how she was portraying
herself on the list.

A rose by any other name.


 >- I took issue
 >with your post. One can (indeed almost has a moral obligation to) do the
 >latter without engaging in the former.

But you didn't address any key issue I have with her, you sought to
engage me in diversion.

 >As for Aimee, Tim's criticisms of her have been reasonably accurate. She,
 >as I have pointed out in the past, writes in strangely stilted English, has
 >not done standard things like reading through some of the early
 >cypherpunkish texts before suggesting ostensibly novel topics that have
 >been well-discussed here before, and so on.

She can join the club.  That wasn't the root of Tim's objection to her.

 >The difference is that she shows promise -- her posts are becoming more
 >relevant and comprehensible -- and you do not and likely never will.

She becomes a better troll and I remain true to my ideals, IOW.

You would be well-advised to question motives, here.  What do I gain by
pursuing an address on the legality of posting bomb recipes?  What does
she gain by quashing all such posts?  Why?

 >I expect this will be my last post in this sad, Reese-infested thread.

Go with God, or cockroaches, or ticks fleas and other insects suitable
to your chosen station as you call it out to be, just go away so Aimee
can stand up without you hovering over, so she can respond for herself.

Bye.

Reese