On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 05:46:10PM -0700, martin chao wrote:
> I began my paper
> with a purely technical perspective, but after
> studying freenet I've decided to change the focus to
> political.
I suggest you stick to technical issues, your rhetorical skills clearly
require much development.
> I must say, so far the freenet philosophy and some of
> your people appear to be quite pathetic.
A tip for the future, if you are looking for a serious debate, starting
an email with a childish insult is a very poor start. There are many
people on this list that you could learn from, show them some respect.
> Your form of democracy appears to be anarchy.
If you think that, you clearly haven't been paying attention.
> This group appears to
> be a bunch of closet socialists / communists who hate
> the american dream and any form of authority, yet you
> represent democracy.
Actually, disliking government control is a very capitalist idea, and is
certainly not socialist or communist in the slightest. Do some research
on the terms you use please.
> You people actually believe the constitution gives you
> the right to distribute porn and other people's
> software.
Well, we do believe that the constitution grants the right to distribute
some forms of pornography, and so does the US Supreme court.
> To quote you: "copyrights are a violation of
> free speech." Yet you only offer a one paragraph
> solution which states that fair use is your ideal
> replacement. To say that copyrights should be
> abolished, then to only specify a 1 paragraph
> replacement, is a prime example of the ignorance of
> this group.
And which paragraph are you talking about?
> For a group whose goal is to respect and uphold
> freedom of speech, you appear to actively discriminate
> against those who don't share your twisted views.
> Hipocricy, again.
I happily discriminate against the stupid, but not against everyone who
disagrees with me.
> Yet Ian Clarke has started a company with the intent
> to release commercial software. Wait a minute, I
> thought open source was the right way? Another example
> of hypocrisy.
Ah, I see, making money is against our philosophy. Prey tell what else
is against our philosophy since you appear to be quite an expert on what
we think...
> This philosophy appears to support the distribution of
> kiddie porn as a form of free speech. Perhaps when you
> teenagers are old enough to have kids, and one of them
> gets raped on camera, the film posted on the internet,
> you will learn what type of reality we live in.
Perhaps when your children are sent off to die in a war about which you
know nothing, then you will learn something about our reality too.
> >From what I see, detailed instructions on how to
> hijack airliners or conduct biological warfare is
> protected under your "freedom of speech" philosophy.
Yes it is, are you suggesting that it be illegal to learn about biology
or aircraft? I would hate to live in your world.
> I have never seen such a glaring example of hypocrisy
> and ignorant idealism in my life, and I can't wait to
> see the courts shut down your warez/porn distribution
> net.
Hmmm, perhaps you should forget about writing about technical issues
too.
> Perhaps you all can enlighten me by explaining the
> merits of your three page philosophy to me in detail,
> and please begin by explaining how fair use is the
> ideal replacement.
Perhaps you should explain to me why I bothered responding to your rude
and insulting email.
Ian.
PGP signature
