From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: Re: EFFector Online 3.06: Bruce Sterling
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:45:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.202344.29486@eff.org>, mnemonic@eff (Mike Godwin) writes:
>>Now, what makes me annoyed to this discussion is your use of rhetoric
>>such as "fantasy", "herous", "drugs" etc.
>
>Well, look, Jyrki, it would be far more hypocritical of me to use
>euphemisms, wouldn't it? Brad Hicks's theory is a fantasy in the truest
>sense of the word. It's something he made up in order to comfort himself
>in his views, and it has no correspondence with the real world.

How do you know his motivation?  Are you proficient in mindreading or
something?

>The business about drugs is not relevant because drugs are inherently bad
>(I don't think they are), but because most of us find it difficult to
>accept as altruistic the acts of a person who committed crimes and sought
>to be paid for these crimes in drugs or in money with which to buy drugs
>(as in Hagbard's case) or in money with which to buy new computer
>equipment (as in Pengo's case). Source: CYBERPUNK, by Katie Hafner and
>John Markoff. (Hafner interviewed Pengo personally.)

Have you ever bought drugs (legal or illegal) with your paycheck?
Have you ever done anything illegal in your work - ie. say you are
driving to some place where you will work and get caught speeding?  If
yes, you committed crimes and sought to be paid for these crimes in
drugs or in money with which to buy drugs.

In neither case do I see it very relevant to the "altruisticness"
(whatever that is) of the acts.

>Jyrki, to say I know Cliff Stoll is *absolutely relevant* when Brad Hicks
>makes personal generalizations about Stoll--as when Hicks questioned both
>his sanity and his morality. When Hicks says Stoll is a raving paranoid,
>it makes perfect sense, and is perfectly relevant, to say "I know Cliff,
>and he's not a raving paranoid."

OK, if Brad Hicks made such comments I probably just ignored them or
took them to be "poetic license".  However, I remember I perceived
your comments as trying to discredit everything Brad said, and didn't
find it quite acceptable.

>I think it shows a double standard when you take me to task for defending
>Cliff as a person, yet you embrace Brad Hicks's postings, which attacked
>Cliff Stoll as a person. This shows something less than fairness.

I didn't read Brad Hicks's postings attacking Cliff Stoll as a person,
but the _idea_ of the astronomer "defending his country" stereotype
(or whatever, it's hard to put in short words) in the _book_ Stoll
wrote.

That might have been just my filtering, though, and it might be that
my picture is not correct - but in any case, you might well be right
that I have a diferent style of reacting to you and Brad Hicks.  That
because you are closely associated with EFF and this is
comp.org.eff.talk, and thus I think you are perceived as a kind of EFF
"spokesperson" (I guess whether you want it or not).

So, it doesn't make me feel good to see you writing personal attacks
since it might hurt people's image of EFF or more generally people
fighting for rights on the electronic frontier.  Thus I try to ask you
to behave more friendly towards people who often are basically
fighting for similar goals.  On the other hand even if I see someone
else, say Brad Hicks, writing personal attacks I have little motive to
complain about that as I can just put the person in my kill file or
ignore it.  If the personal attacks are annoying enough but the actual
message otherwise seems good, then I might try to tell the person that
(because I'm reluctant to use a kill file in that case).

>>I would hope we could just discuss simply the issues without dragging
>>the personal authorities, loyalties and life stories of every author
>>in.
>
>Have you mentioned this to Brad Hicks?

I guess he reads this group as well, and would think he read the
message you were quoting as well.

>>That aside, I didn't read Brad's writing the same way as you.  I took
>>it to say just "here's an alternative viewpoint - perhaps one should
>>also look it from this angle".
>
>How did you take his reference to me as someone who did not know, or who
>denied, American strategic-weapons policy at the time of the Cuckoo's Egg
>case?

I probably didn't think much of it - ie. took it just part of a
useless "US-is-much-better-than-soviet-union" - "no-it-is-not"
subthread.  Now that I look at it I don't think it is very good
discussion style.

>I have never used the term "evil empire." I use "drugs" in reference to
>drugs. Would you prefer me to use a term like "illicit pharmaceuticals"?

How about "illegal psychoactives".

>I find it hypocritical of you to chide me for responding to personal
>references when you don't bother to criticize Hicks for making personal
>references.

For the reason above (among others), I don't agree.  Also, if one
would use the rule you are using one could hardly criticize anything
as there are limitless other examples of similar or worse practices
worth criticizing, and it would take limitless lifetimes to criticize
_all_ the problems of the world.

>Perhaps you apply a different standard to me than you do to
>Brad Hicks? If so, what does this say about your fairness?

You tell me.

//Jyrki