1997-05-08 - Re: My editorial in Oregonian newspaper published today.

Header Data

From: jimbell@pacifier.com (Jim Bell)
To: “Vladimir Z. Nuri” <vznuri@netcom.com>
Message Hash: 61e207afcea3faab62e53439399a75aea8c2d919ac952cffc70c4a53bca0d03e
Message ID: <199705081446.HAA07883@mail.pacifier.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-05-08 15:20:01 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 23:20:01 +0800

Raw message

From: jimbell@pacifier.com (Jim Bell)
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 23:20:01 +0800
To: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: My editorial in Oregonian newspaper published today.
Message-ID: <199705081446.HAA07883@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 17:20 5/07/97 -0700, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:
>JB's editorial is so mild-mannered I can barely resist comment.
>this from the JB we all know and love? this is so bland as to
>be almost PC, and frankly I agreed with every statement in
>it, virtually. how did he manage to avoid the label "assassination
>politics"? in fact how does he avoid the label "assassination"
>entirely? 

Hey, doofus, the article was 840 words long, 40 words longer than the length
recommended by the newspaper.  It ALSO avoids any mention of cryptography,
or digital cash, both of which would have not only just confused the average
newspaper reader, but  would have ballooned the article far past the length
that the newspaper could reasonably consider publishing.


>I think the main flimflammery in the essay is the concept of
>"criminal". JB always advocated in the past that merely being
>a bureacrat was virtually criminal, and that people would donate
>money toward their demise. 


Repeat same point above about length and detail.

>note to everyone: jim bell's editorial has virtually no relation
>to his past essays. I propose that someone send that newspaper
>his AP article.

They certainly had access to it.  The guy I talked to at the newspaper
claimed he had read it.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com






Thread