1993-09-19 - Re: more deranged lunatic ravings – just delete ‘em!

Header Data

From: khijol!erc@apple.com (Ed Carp)
To: pmetzger@lehman.com
Message Hash: abf211ce5cd39867a2da84d25a623b1232f019eee4495e6b8e0547d3356b9e28
Message ID: <m0oeTnW-00021tC@khijol>
Reply To: <9309191818.AA08784@snark.lehman.com>
UTC Datetime: 1993-09-19 18:55:50 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 19 Sep 93 11:55:50 PDT

Raw message

From: khijol!erc@apple.com (Ed Carp)
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 93 11:55:50 PDT
To: pmetzger@lehman.com
Subject: Re: more deranged lunatic ravings -- just delete 'em!
In-Reply-To: <9309191818.AA08784@snark.lehman.com>
Message-ID: <m0oeTnW-00021tC@khijol>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text

> Ed Carp says:
> > > As I've noted in private mail to you, *WE* are not conducting this
> > > investigation. *WE* are not involved. *WE* haven't been summoned to
> > > provide evidence in court.
> > 
> > First off, 'we' ARE involved.
> Oh? Have you been hired as an attorney for either side?

Nope.  That's not the point, and you know it.  The point being (and I'm not
even sure why I'm bothering to explain this to you - you're intelligent)
this case has the potential to affect ALL of us, not just the participants
in the case.

> > This case is IMPORTANT, and can have far-
> > reaching consequences for us.
> Yes, thats fine and well, but this is very different from saying that
> "*WE* have to conduct an investigation and get to the bottom of this"
> as if "we" are even a group or in possession of resources to do any
> such thing. Indeed, what Mr. Detweiler has largely been proposing is
> yammering.

*I* proposed no such thing.  Get your facts straight.

> Cypherpunks CODE. Quit yammering and start coding. I'm coding. Its

Yeah, and women are supposed to stay home, barefoot and preggers.  Yeah,

> fine to keep up to date. Its fine to send big checks to EFF. Its fine
> to do some legwork if you think it can help. However, what is the
> point in saying inane things like "we have to find out what the grand
> jury is investigating" when its a bloody secret and we don't get to
> find out until they unseal their indictments?

I think it's pretty clear what they're investigating.

> > > I have a great deal of trouble getting excited over something that
> > > will take years to resolve, yes. This is not like watching the D-Day
> > > invasion, or even like watching trench warfare in WWI. This is very
> > > much like watching people playing chess while immersed in ice cold
> > > molasses. Hard to get thrilled by the pace, Mr. Detweiler.
> > 
> > The attorneys and other experts looking at this case apparantly don't share
> > your lack of enthuasism.  Even in the very early stages, the groundwork that
> > is laid in a case like this is of TREMENDOUS importance to the outcome of
> > the case, regardless of how long it takes to be resolved.  Frankly, I'm
> > surprised at your lackadaisical attitude
> Not lackadaisical. Simply not in a state of hyperactive disarray. WE
> are not doing the groundwork. The attorneys are. WE are not about to
> be charged with a crime. WE have no reason to go into a frenzy of
> activity -- I see nothing that WE can do. It isn't up to us.

Oh, Jesus-Christ-on-a-crutch...It *IS* up to us!  WE are THE PEOPLE ... or
do you believe that the words "We, the People" on the Declaration of
Independence have no meaning?  WE are going to decide the outcome of this
case.  WE are going to be sitting on the jury, WE are going to be writing
letters to the local newspapers, WE are going to be watching the trial (if
one ever comes about).

> You sound like someone upset that the supreme court is about to rule
> about abortion and screaming "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING". Well what,
> precisely, do you propose to do? Take over the legal work when you
> aren't a lawyer? Complain? Scratch your crotch and look important?

Well, scratching my crotch and looking important HAD crossed my mind. :)

What do you think, that even the Supreme Court works in a social and
political vacumm?  If you believe that, you are pretty naive.  Public
opinion shapes everything we do, everything we see.  If we aren't out there
helping to shape puyblic opinion, SOMEONE is going to be doing it, and
they might not be so supportive of individual rights.

> This isn't in our hands. If you think you have information of use to
> the lawyers, give it to them and be done with it -- there is nothing
> else you can do.
> > Cases involving billions of dollars have been decided by trivial details.
> Oh? How many cases involving billion dollar settlements can you name?
> Care to give us a list?

Many.  The Getty Oil deal of several years back comes to mind, as does the
Texaco vs. Pennzoil deal.  You don't think that Roe v. Wade didn't have an
economic impact?
Ed Carp, N7EKG			erc@apple.com			510/659-9560
If you want magic, let go of your armor.  Magic is so much stronger than
steel!        -- Richard Bach, "The Bridge Across Forever"