1996-12-02 - Re: denial of service and government rights

Header Data

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
To: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Message Hash: 706529ae6943ae3ae8b11e8ed79756f2581d8c4eca7634e1ac2760c87578a4d4
Message ID: <32A2F537.16B@gte.net>
Reply To: <>
UTC Datetime: 1996-12-02 15:27:19 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 07:27:19 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn@gte.net>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 1996 07:27:19 -0800 (PST)
To: Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Subject: Re: denial of service and government rights
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <32A2F537.16B@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Greg Broiles wrote:
> At 05:24 PM 12/1/96 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote:
> >So what you're saying is I (or we) can testify in front of Congress on
> >essentially any topic, telling a blatant lie (that we know is false, and
> >which they will subsequently prove is false), and totally get away with
> >it.  You and I can do that, is that what you're saying?

> This is idiotic. I suspect it's deliberately idiotic, but I can't see what
> anyone gains by it. If you've got a point to make, would you please just
> say what you're thinking and move on?

See below.

> There's a big difference between something being punishable and someone
> being punished. The false testimony was given on behalf of a friendly
> government, and in favor of a cause which met with widespread national
> support and was the focus of much (literal) flag-waving and patriotic
> speechifying. In general, you face very few risks if you lie in a way which
> helps a very popular cause, and the people you're lying to want to do the
> thing that your lies are purportedly justifying. Your risks are much
> greater if you're saying something unpopular or if you are an unpopular
> person. I'm not talking about law, I'm talking about politics. And the fact
> that laws are sometimes enforced in a political matter shouldn't be news to
> anyone. (I'm not saying that's good, but I think it's attributable to and a
> result of to the general fallibility of human beings, myself included, so
> I'm skeptical about easy answers. Real-world solutions tend to fall short
> of theoretical perfection. Doh.)

> >If that is true, then my original contention that things are far worse
> >than the person I originally responded to was imagining, stands as
> >correct.  Things are bad indeed.

> I'd sure appreciate it if you'd just say what you're thinking (if it's
> on-topic) instead of playing stupid "Is X true? Is Y true? Wow! I've just
> discovered something new!" games. Your comments suggest to me that what
> you're dancing around is, essentially, that the government is morally wrong
> because it (eliding distinctions between governments and branches of
> governments) enforces laws in an erratic or discriminatory or political
> fashion. That's what I'm extracting from your messages. If there's
> something more to what you're saying, I think I'd have a better chance of
> extracting it if you devoted less energy to tricky rhetorical strategies.

I sympathize.  My original posting was short and clear.  This is what
happens when people who don't think as clearly as you do (sadly, a
majority of c-punks) respond to a posting with deliberately twisted
logic to "refute" a point.  See Black Unicorn's recent posts about
denial of service for an excellent example of this.