From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 19:34:56 +0800
To: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Subject: Re: code vs cypher
In-Reply-To: <01I434P7PXFQ8Y53B6@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GUL.3.93.960428202142.13032S-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:

> From:   IN%"jamesd@echeque.com" 28-APR-1996 19:31:33.43
> 
> >You continually bring up this irrelevant topic whenever someone complains
> >about your egregious statism on other issues:
> 
>         And what's wrong with being a statist on _some_ issues? A strict party
> line will do nobody any good. In other words, politics makes strange
> bedfellows, such as libertarians with (non-PC) liberals on many free-speech
> issues, libertarians with militia types (including the [censored]) on freedom
> of association, etcetera.

Er... thanks, but no thanks. This presumes that James's characterization
of my positions on other issues is correct, and I do not believe that it
is.

Astute readers may remember that I "became" a FUCKING STATIST because I
objected to Jim Bell's idea that no government employee deserved any
privacy in his or her personal life. I adopted the epithet because I
thought it was funny. 

I do not recall defending any statist policies. I did not defend the
[censored], and indeed to defend the [censored] would not have been
egregious statism, or indeed any kind of statism at all, because we were
talking about private pressure on private ISPs. I am well aware that the
[censored] has favored arbitrary statist controls in other countries and
circumstances, but I do not recall ever discussing those policies of the
[censored] with anyone here.

In fact, most [censored], [censored], and [censored], and all regular
posters to alt.revisionism save one, have criticized the [censored] rather
roundly, and supported free speech for [censored].

I am not [censored], and I do not support the [censored]. I do not believe
I have ever defended any policy of the [censored]. I have merely
endeavored that in their zeal to demonstrate opposition to the policies of
the [censored], some more activist folks such as [censored], [censored],
and [censored] have strayed a bit too far into the deep end by criticizing
positions that the [censored] does not, in fact, hold.

My position on most such issues is yes, the walls are closing in, but the
sky is not falling. I'd rather look on the bright side sometimes, and I
will never accept untruths, especially from friends.

-rich