From: jpp@markv.com
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 95 10:58:57 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Effects of S.314 (Communications Decency Act)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950209092021.25204A-100000@crl.crl.com>
Message-ID: <9502091057.aa19104@hermix.markv.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Sandy, and other C'punks,

THIS IS A RESPONSE TO A GRAMMAR FLAME.  But not, I hope, a flame
itself.

I respect your opinion, Sandy, and am glad you like what I wrote.  And I
certainly don't take your grammar 'flame' personally.  In fact, I
_agree_ with what you have said.  But for one thing -- one of my
points was to rub their noses in a particularly stinky example of
stegnography.  What secret messages are concealed in my letter?  Can
anyone know?  That was an essential point to my letter.

In retrospect I would change the analogy from parking lots to mail
carriers.  (Does it make sense for a mail carrier to be held liable
for the 'bad' mail they happen to deliver?)  I would also probably
point out that the internet community standard for what is obscene is
awfully loose, and seems to focus mainly on a brand of pork meat
product. ;)

I just got off the phone with my 'representatives.'  Perhaps calling
them doesn't have the same impact that a letter does, but it is very
immediately gratifying.

j(who _can_ drive a spelling checker)'

P.S.  Yes, you made an error in your post :).  If you will proof my
letters to my reps I will proof yours.  Deal?