Re: mailing lists

>i don't see you sticking your neck out to deal with assholes who think
>freedom of speech is secondary to their right not to ever see mail
>they don't want. 

Like hell we're not.  What are you guys mad at us for?  Thinking that
FREEDOM of SPEECH is much, much more important that whining computer
nerds who can't push a DELETE button.

>i did competitive public speaking from 7th grade until my junior year
>of high school where i was also on the debate team for two years.

In that case, maybe you should learn to use the SHIFT key.  Or didn't
debaters in your school take typing and/or learn about punctuation,
capitalization, and the other niceties of English communication?

>now i make a living as a biochemistry grad student (only a year left
>until you get to call me Dr.) where logic is paramount and feelings
>are irrelevant.

Well, "doctor" why can't you see (with your logic) that junk Email (or
"spam") would save many, many forests if it REPLACED junk SnailMail.

Isn't it just that your "irrelevant feelings" have been hurt, because
someone used your remailer-baby in a way you hadn't planned for ?!?

Why not put your money where your mouth is, and bet me (any amount),
that spam WILL be socially acceptable by the year 2000.  Particularly,
when the green-folks discover how many trees will be saved.  It'll be
a social-mandate, NOT just a suggestion.  Want to bet?


-- HTTP://www.HIPCRIME.com

On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, HipCrime wrote:

> >i don't see you sticking your neck out to deal with assholes who think
> >freedom of speech is secondary to their right not to ever see mail
> >they don't want. 
> 
> Like hell we're not.  What are you guys mad at us for?  Thinking that
> FREEDOM of SPEECH is much, much more important that whining computer
> nerds who can't push a DELETE button.
> 

Freedom of speech is a poor excuse for junk email. There are few absolute
freedoms in any society, and those that exercise their "freedom" to the
point of abusing their fellows are those who cause such freedoms to become
more restricted. I'm personally against needing to pay the social costs of
more and more laws because someone is trying to make a buck any way he
can, regardless of the costs and annoyances to others.

Hitting the DELETE key once in a while is not the problem. Inequitable 
division of the costs is a problem. The aggravation of seeing something 
good being slowly eroded is a problem. People who feel that they have 
"rights" and "freedoms" with no concept of the social responsibility that 
creates and protects such intangibles are a problem.

> Well, "doctor" why can't you see (with your logic) that junk Email (or
> "spam") would save many, many forests if it REPLACED junk SnailMail.
> 

And how much could be saved if we did away with both? Could we end world 
hunger if spammers were converted to soylent green?


> Isn't it just that your "irrelevant feelings" have been hurt, because
> someone used your remailer-baby in a way you hadn't planned for ?!?
> 
> Why not put your money where your mouth is, and bet me (any amount),
> that spam WILL be socially acceptable by the year 2000.  Particularly,
> when the green-folks discover how many trees will be saved.  It'll be
> a social-mandate, NOT just a suggestion.  Want to bet?
> 

Telemarketing (even at at dinner time) is widespread. So is junk snail-mail. 
How socialy acceptable these behaviors are is debatable.

Junk faxing was a blessedly short term fad, one that had to be legislated 
away.

I'm completely in favor of allowing junk email, as long as "JUNK MAIL" is 
required to be the first thing on the subject line. PLONK!   ... but that 
will take yet another law ... 

- r.w.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In list.cypherpunks, robert@precipice.v-site.net writes:

> Why not put your money where your mouth is, and bet me (any amount),
> that spam WILL be socially acceptable by the year 2000.  Particularly,
> when the green-folks discover how many trees will be saved.  It'll be
> a social-mandate, NOT just a suggestion.  Want to bet?

Bryce had a great idea when he suggested a mail filter with a $1 ecash
deposit required for first contact.  It would certainly help out when
people who Don't Get It start to misbehave.
- -- 
           Roy M. Silvernail     [ ]      roy@scytale.com
PGP Public Key fingerprint =  31 86 EC B9 DB 76 A7 54  13 0B 6A 6B CC 09 18 B6
                Key available from pubkey@scytale.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMjjwxBvikii9febJAQFqJgP8Dba9ElftL7FLnpBfzf4YxARw4GUiFKn0
dsXBBPzP3K/Tv1okiR2/7jPwPEaTjwZIkOt4FwjoipFdQqNG6b6D87LOWmSLxYw0
qEw91mquDFeByZewETp/lVG66Ff834crZB0/6UCG00MUip5PWt1VXOMBwjc3pjQD
P+yJ+NEBlA0=
=zwwH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Taken from a recent Edupage:

> SGS-THOMSON TAKES AIM AT DVD PIRACY
> SGS-Thomson Microelectronics has developed a computer chip that prevents
> would-be DVD pirates from making unlawful copies of movies from digital
> video disc players.  The chip scrambles the disk's coding if it's duplicated
> on a VCR.  (Investor's Business Daily 11 Sep 96 A6)

Anyone know anything about this?  Sounds like nonsense to me ...

Gary
--
"Of course the US Constitution isn't perfect; but it's a lot better
than what we have now."  -- Unknown.

pub  1024/C001D00D 1996/01/22  Gary Howland <gary@systemics.com>
Key fingerprint =  0C FB 60 61 4D 3B 24 7D  1C 89 1D BE 1F EE 09 06

On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, HipCrime wrote:
> Well, "doctor" why can't you see (with your logic) that junk Email (or
> "spam") would save many, many forests if it REPLACED junk SnailMail.
> Isn't it just that your "irrelevant feelings" have been hurt, because
> someone used your remailer-baby in a way you hadn't planned for ?!?
> Why not put your money where your mouth is, and bet me (any amount),
> that spam WILL be socially acceptable by the year 2000.  Particularly,
> when the green-folks discover how many trees will be saved.  It'll be
> a social-mandate, NOT just a suggestion.  Want to bet?

     I'll accept junk email when it costs more to send it than recieve it. 
I don't have to pay for my incoming snail mail service. Most do for email. 
You are speaking on my dime, and that isn't FREE SPEECH. You want to talk, 
you pay. 


Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@smoke.suba.com