[52043] in Cypherpunks
Re: How's that again?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Black Unicorn)
Tue Mar 12 18:09:47 1996
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 17:40:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Cc: "David K. Merriman" <merriman@arn.net>, cypherpunks@toad.com
In-Reply-To: <m0twag5-0008xXC@pacifier.com>
On Tue, 12 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote:
> some people around here think is just fine. You might note that the same
> people who have been most critical of my stance on the Leahy bill are the
> same ones who vigorously opposed AP, suggesting that their motives are
> questionable and certainly a bit "predictable."
Or that your tone and method of delivery combined with your knowledge of
the subject matter at hand is consistantly lacking.
> You will notice, I assume, that I have been and can be tactful to most
> people; where exceptions exist, they are typically among anonymous posters
> (such as this "Black Unicorn") who has now admitted he's an elitist legal
> snob and doesn't want anybody who hasn't spent a few years in law ("mental
> reform") school to pass judgment on the judges, no matter how outrageous
> their actions become.
I believe my concern was with your review of legislation and the impact
of cases without any legal background.
Revise your statement to:
"doesn't want anyone who hasn't spent a few years in law school to pass
judgement on pending legislation and the effect of supreme court decision
thereon..."
and you'd be right on the money.
And I confirm again that I'm an elitist legal snob. At least I know what
I'm talking about.
> Jim Bell
> jimbell@pacifier.com
---
My prefered and soon to be permanent e-mail address: unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information
