From: blanc <blancw@cnw.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 00:53:41 -0800 (PST)
To: "'cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: RE: Another apologist for John Gilmore's censorship
Message-ID: <01BBD421.F6C167A0@king1-28.cnw.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM

dv:     Why the quotes? John Gilmore censored me with no quotes.

bw:   Don't worry about it.

dv:   No. John Gilmore's actions are contrary to free speech, but his own
principles clearly don't include free speech. He has no credibility.

bw:   I guess you think this will bring me anguish.

dv:    Not true. An honorable person would tolerate all speech and either ignore
it or respond with more speech. A dishonorable person, such as John Gilmore,
seeks to silence the speech he doesn't like.

bw:   You're not obliged to be dishonorable even if others are.

dv:    .....Note also that he hasn't pulled the plugs of other very rude people, like Timmy May (fart).

bw:   He's not obliged to be rude only according to your preference.

dv:    Speech is not action. Action is not speech.

bw:   But the principle regarding the tolerance of insults is the same in both cases.

dv:   I don't think John Gilmore's sexual practices are *that* bizarre. The Kinsey
report estimates that 10% of the population shares his practices.

bw:   I guess you think you're talking to someone who gives a flip.

   ..
Blanc