response 26 of 51:

Jun 8 04:17 UTC 2001

I guess that in this case I not only fail to agree with John, I'm completely
baffled by him.

I thought all conservatives believed that when you are threatened, you defend
yourself, you don't leave the job to others.  John seems to be advocating
the opposite.

response 28 of 51:

Jun 8 15:14 UTC 2001

For me, the process of argument involves trying to figure out where the other
person is coming from, and trying to challenge his own conclusions from his
own assumptions.  Since I can't figure out where John is coming from on this
one, I am unable to argue with him.

response 30 of 51:

Jun 8 16:06 UTC 2001

I think his problem is simply that he dislikes the ACLU and what they do. 
He's probably a conservative law-and-order type who doesn't like limits on
government enforcement power.

response 32 of 51:

Jun 8 20:29 UTC 2001

I certainly haven't intended anything resembling what #26 or #30 cited 
me as saying.  It seems quite a stretch, from my comment that I don't 
think Grex should be participating in partisan political actions, to 
claiming I said Grex shouldn't defend itself.  Let alone that I'm a 
conservative who thinks government power should be unlimited.

Maybe those who are so confused by my comments can identify which of the 
following statements are incomprehensible, and maybe even explain a 
little about why they're so befuddling.  These are actually things I've 
said:

1. Grex shouldn't be participating in partisan political actions.

2. By taking political actions, Grex loses the impartial status that it 
used to have as a forum with no political opinion of it's own.

3. By sending (limited) money to Grex (long ago), I intended to promote 
a certain thing; a conferencing system with forums for people to 
participate in.  It doesn't fit with that concept, in my mind, for Grex 
to be joining in political actions taken by other groups such as the 
ACLU.  "Conferencing system" <> "Front for ACLU".

It's not just that it's the ACLU, though I don't support the ACLU.  I'd 
object if Grex were joining the Red Cross for political lawsuits.  I'd 
object if Grex were lobbying along with the Huron Valley Watershed 
Council or Student Advocacy Center.  There's a difference between a 
forum and a politically active organization.  Grex should have stuck to 
being a forum.

4) Grex's name is a resource.  The name "Cyberspace Communications" is a 
resource.  It wouldn't be a resource without the contributions of users, 
including myself (however small and however long ago).  Using those 
resources for the interests of other groups is allocating the 
contributions of those users for the purposes of other groups.  It is, 
in some respect, the same as contributing my money (and that of other 
contributors) to the other group; in this case, the ACLU.

re #29: I don't want any money back from Grex.  I don't know how much 
I've contributed, but it's not a lot -- nor is that relevant.  Grex was 
different when I contributed it, anyway.  It was welcome to whatever I 
sent.  It's just not welcome to any more of my money, because I don't 
trust Grex not to mis-use it.  (But thanks, Dan.)

response 34 of 51:

Jun 9 00:42 UTC 2001

I don't see it as a partisan thing at all, either. 

response 36 of 51:

Jun 9 07:13 UTC 2001

I think jep's argument is an example of taking a reasonable position to a 
logical extreme, which shows why that is an effective devide.  The logic 
breaks down.

response 38 of 51:

Jun 9 14:06 UTC 2001

You are right and I was wrong.  In #12, #14 and #22, he used "political";
in #32, he started using "partisan political."  And that was the first
occurrence of "partisan" in this item.

Sorry, John, you are wrong:  Politics is how we arrange to live in near
proximity (usually) without killing each other.

If the matter at hand were a law that had nothing to do with the online
community (overturning a motorcycle helmet law, for instance), I would
agree that grex should stay out of it.  But when the law is one that 
directly affects us, there is no reason for us to go it alone and every
reason to ally ourselves with those who can help us when.

Would we have gotten involved in this suit had the ACLU not asked us to?
I wasn't here then, so I don't know how we got involved.  So I can't
say one way or the other.

response 40 of 51:

Jun 11 15:42 UTC 2001

I'd still like to find out what parts of my comments previous to #32 
were incomprehensible.  I'm wondering if I've lost my ability to 
communicate (or never had it much in the first place), or if there's 
some willful denial going on from some people, or what.  I can 
understand that many people don't really care about what I've said, but 
a few people responded to me in this item, indicating some interest, but 
citing me as impossible to understand in any way.

I guess that's a side issue.

I don't see anything I can add to my previous comments, other than 
continuing to repeat myself.  I think Grex has chosen a disappointing 
direction.  I can't offer congratulations for it's "success".  There are 
conflicting comments about this; Grex didn't do anything, and yet it's 
participation was essential, according to comments in this item.  
Whatever.

response 42 of 51:

Jun 11 16:32 UTC 2001

Well, slashdot.org has us linked on the main page today (Monday) as part of
the story.  Eep!

response 44 of 51:

Jun 11 16:49 UTC 2001

re #41: I'm afraid I just can't go over it all yet again.  It would 
probably be better to direct your comments to the general audience -- if 
there is one -- and not to me.  As I said in #40, I've said about all I 
can.  If further clarification of my opinion is necessary at this point, 
I'm probably not capable of making my point to you at all.

response 46 of 51:

Jun 11 18:42 UTC 2001

Jep says "Grex has chosen a disappointing direction".  I don't even agree that
Grex made a choice.  The Engler and the Michigan Legislature made a choice
when they passed the law.  Once the law existed, Grex's options were so
limited that I'd hardly dignify them with the name of "choice".  We could
comply with the law (shutting down newuser and validating the age of all
applicants for Grex accounts).  We could defy the law, continuing to operate
the old way without regard to the law (thus putting the board members at risk
of serving jail time or paying fines far exceeding Grex's annual budget). 
The only viable future for Grex required that the law be declared
unconstitutional.  I believe that John agrees that this was our only hope.

We needed the law to be overturned.  We were asked to lend some small amount
of help toward achieving that end.  My understanding is that John thinks that
in that situation we should have claimed impartiality and refused to help.

I just completely fail to understand how that can be put forth as a viable
option.  If you hit a dog with a stick, the dog objects and will try to run
away or defend itself.  It isn't making any kind of sophisticated choice, it
isn't being political.  It is defending itself.  Grex's opposition to this
law wasn't a matter of choice either.  To fail to oppose it would have been
suicidal behavior.

To pretend that we are impartial even to the question of our own continued
survival would be a flat-out blatant lie.  We have labored to build this
system for a decade.  How is anyone supposed to believe that we are
indifferent to the question of its continued existence?  To pretend to
such indifference would be a ridiculous pose, contributing nothing to Grex's
reputation as a open forum.

To refuse to aide in our own defense so that we can strike such a fatuous
pose would be more than ridiculous.  It would be contemptable.

Maybe the idea is that we are supposed to be practicing something like
Ghandian non-violent protest.  When the storm troopers come to shut us down,
we should just ignore them, and hope the world media will rebel when they
seen the evil Michigan Internet Storm Troopers pull the plug on quiet,
unresisting Grex.

response 48 of 51:

Jun 12 00:56 UTC 2001

I don't agree with John's position, but I don't find it hard to understand
either.  Throughout most of Grex's history, it's been perfectly legal to run
a system such as Grex.  Grex was merely doing what the law allowed it to do,
and not attempting to influence the law in any way.  Once a law restricting
or perhaps banning Grex was passed, Grex took an active political position
in opposing the law.  That strikes me as a pretty big change too, but I think
where John and I disagree is on whether that was the right choice to make.
Grex did have a choice in this matter.  It could have let somebody else do
the fighting over the law and remained operational.  If nobody had faught the
law and it started being enforced, Grex could have shut down.  Both of those
options would have been perfectly legal, and would have allowed Grex to remain
uninvolved in political issues.  I think suing was the right thing to do. 
I'm glad the ACLU was there to help us.  Still, I don't think that means no
other viewpoint is valid.