[Noisebridge-discuss] Sigh -- I'm not helping with Maker Faires this year.
jacob at appelbaum.net
Thu Apr 5 01:25:15 UTC 2012
On 04/04/2012 05:50 PM, Matt Joyce wrote:
>> Yes, I'm happy to take a stand and make value judgments. I am happy to
>> assert that I feel uncomfortable with trying to understand the full context.
> Kay. Whatever works for you. Stay awesome.
>> You're avoiding some of the most important events of the last decade
>> that are related to the fruits of DARPA's labor, amongst others.
> Yes I am. I have no problem with that because I don't see them as
> relevant to the discussion. I tried to communicate what that is. I
> may have failed in that. Sorry.
Who are you to suggest that limiting the scope is appropriately able to
address the concerns of those who have them? The fact that I disagree
should indicate that you're not actually listening.
>> So we should remember that it is legitimate but ignore that many feel
>> that it isn't actually legit? Right...
> I am not sure to what you are referring with the indefinite "it". I
> assume you mean the legitimacy of the war? I am not going to touch
> the electoral process as a matter here. I do believe that any issues
> relating to issues of legitimacy are the concern of our elected
> government and not the military complex. I suspect we both have
> differing opinions on that issue, but I will go so far as to say that
> I do believe our nation is in need of SEVERE electoral reform first
> and foremost among our current political problems. I have been
> thinking long and hard about what that could be and how to achieve it
> well. I have no answer at this time but I love to discuss it over
> beer whenever it is possible to do so with enjoyment.
No, I was not limiting my statement to the "legitimacy of the war" - I
and others doubt the legitimacy of the government's entry into the Iraq
war, as well as other wars. I also doubt the legitimacy of the elected
officials. However, I also doubt the legitimacy of the military
industrial complex simply because they're part of the government.
> Open discussion with differing viewpoints is an asset here.
Stop emailing me privately if you want open discussion.
>> Uh, OK?
> Not sure what the question mark there means. Are you uncertain as to
> whether you agree with that? Or something else?
I don't even understand what you're trying to express with what you wrote.
> Same as above.
>> This email was on the list - it isn't much of a discussion if it's in
>> private, please keep it on the list.
> Not sure it's relevant to the thread. Not opposed just seems
> selfishly imposing upon others. I see this as a point of clarity
> addressing your personal questions. I don't see the responses I am
> giving as being very valuable to the rest of the list. Obviously you
> can repost or publicly address anything I say in a public forum at
> your leisure. Feel free to do so. Not really a concern of mine.
>> Are you going to agree about the mission of DARPA already or what?
> Regarding that being the mission statement of DARPA? Yes, of course
> it is, if you follow my thread in November on this list, you were
> quoting from an email I posted in November and linked back to... I
> actually cite that specific passage in a later email to clear up some
> possible misunderstandings. I think you are still missing the point
> of what I said. I obviously need to work on my communication skills
> some more.
You specifically stated "DARPA isn't in the business of killing people."
and that is completely bogus. Stop dancing around that misstatement and
please stop whitewashing DARPA's mission.
Not everything that DARPA does is directly about murdering people but
it's absolutely pointless to discuss this if you can't discuss the
indisputable facts directly.
All the best,
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss