From: jamesd@netcom.com (James A. Donald)
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 94 22:53:05 PST
To: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
Subject: Re: BofA+Netscape
In-Reply-To: <199412130641.WAA01309@largo.remailer.net>
Message-ID: <199412130652.WAA12984@netcom4.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From: jamesd@netcom.com (James A. Donald)
> > You claimed I was
> > arguing from libertarian correctness.

Eric Hughes replies:
> Perhaps you don't know the meaning of whitespace and paragraph breaks.

And then he contradicts himself:

> I did claim you were arguing from libertarian correctness.  Now that's
> just an insult, which I do not retract.
 
>
> [...]
 
> 
> Oh, please.  Go back and read what I originally wrote.  Perhaps I
> overestimate your ability to ascertain relevance, though.
 
You do not demonstrate much ability to think rationally
in this posting.  A self contradiction in three lines,
above, and some interesting logic to follow:
 
I wrote:
> > The short of your argument is that Netscape will fragment the
> > net by running out there and dumping something in the market
> > place without consensing with all the big boys.

you wrote:
> This is not an argument.  This is a premise. 
 
I see:  So you start off with the assumption that what
I was arguing was false, and because that is a premise 
not an argument, you do not have to defend it or support it. 
 
Nice piece of logic there.
 
I accused you of flaming before reading.  Now you claim
that you did read it, but the laws of logic exempt you
from having to make rational criticism of what I wrote.
 
I think your defense denigrates you more than my original 
accusation did. 

Now back to some slight crypto relevance:

Each posting I made was about the standards making process.

I argue that good standards are created by victory in the
market place, and bad standards are made by committees
and consensus.

You argue game theory that would be valid given your premise
that cooperation works in this case.  Since the whole point
of each of my letters on this thread is that cooperation
with lagging competitors does not work in setting standards,
game theory is irrelevant to this issue.

Your so called "game theory" is just code for the moral
assumption that Netscape are wicked not to engage in consensus.

I do what you pretend to do.  I deduce moral truths from
game theory.  You instead start off with an unjustified moral 
assumption, and express that assumption in 
inappropriate game theoretic language, so that you can
cloak your arbitrary prejudices in pretended moral neutrality.

You do not reason using game theory, you use it as a code
to express moral claims without having to justify them.

 
--
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we        James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.            jamesd@netcom.com