[12074] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Fwd: Short substantive EFF policy question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen Covington)
Wed May 4 07:03:30 1994
Date: Wed, 4 May 1994 00:51:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stephen Covington <cvington@netcom.com>
To: com-priv@psi.com
Cc: mech@eff.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9405040042.A22917-0100000@netcom9>
> On Tue, 3 May 1994, Sam Boyle wrote:
>
> > Are we finished yet? There's no point in holding a debate when neither
> > side appears intent on listening.
I disagree, I feel that Stanton is being baited and has *effectively*
stated both his own and EFF's positions on the topics discussed. He has
provided working examples (to the extent that such is possible, ie: not
identifying individual cases, but discussing as much of the specifics as
necessary).
> > I'm troubled by the fact that EFF seems to be taking a lot of criticism and
> > their answers don't seem focused or coherent.
******* BOOM! ... SHOT #1 FIRED! ******** daaannnggg....missed!!!
> > There's a bunch of
> > gobblygook about being too busy to reply to specifics, and looking things
> > up, and general philosophy -- but no specific answers to specific
> > questions.
*******BOOM! ... SHOT #2 FIRED! ******** missed again! The statement that
he was too busy to reply to specifics was at the beginning of the thread,
and at least to MY mailbox, he has answered specific questions one by one
as they have exploded into HIS mailbox.
> > I submit, IMHO, that the time spent in drafting cutsie replies
> > (with biting sarcasm no less) would be better spent specifically answering
> > the questions posed.
> >
> > Call it good PR. Call it common sense. Call it "funding for the future."
Read your own lines in the above statements, they are as sarcastic as any
contributed to this thread!!!!
> > PLUUUUZE, I DON'T WANT TO DEBATE THIS!
> >
> > Sam
If you didn't want to DEBATE this, then *WHY* did you hit the *SEND* key!!!
-steve covington
>
