From: s1113645@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 04:29:52 +0800
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: [increasingly irrelevant] Re: Watch your language...
In-Reply-To: <m0u8UBq-0008z1C@pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9604141344.A21471-0100000@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Enough of this thread.

On Sun, 14 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote:

> Exactly!  I think the issue is important enough so that we really ought to 
> develop new wording, something that far more accurately reflects the bulk of our
> opinion towards wiretapping.

The quote should be taken in context. If you look at the whole thing 
(it's still at www.vtw.org) he was talking about a corrupt cop who had
killed a mother of three while he was being wiretapped by the FBI.
The wiretap did nothing to save her.

He continues in the same sentence as the one we're disputing, to question 
the effectiveness and utility of wiretaps in light of this and does so 
throughout the rest of the text. Come on, Jim, no offense meant, but 
there's criticizing and then there's nitpicking. One half of one 
sentence does not sell out the whole argument, no matter how it's 
worded. We're not in court, let's not waste our time on semantics.

Cheers.