NRC asks for reviewers for forthcoming Internet porn report

[James B. DiGriz]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 14, 2001, at 01:22 PM, James B. DiGriz wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, James B. DiGriz wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> And so I've said my say,
> >> jbdigriz
> >>
> >
> > Uh, ya'll don't all respond at once now.
> >
> > Seriously, I know I'm not a regular poster, but don't leave me twisting 
> > in
> > the wind here. I haven't heard this kind of deafening silence since the
> > time I told my lawyer the church job was a frame up and who did the
> > framing. He didn't believe me, but he found out I was right. (I think 
> > his
> > point then was "yeah, so?", but he got us off without a trial. Damn 
> > sharp
> > attorney, that one.)
> 
> First, people are less likely to respond to whimsical nyms, even a 
> stainless steel rat.
> 

Ouch, whimsical. Let's just say that keeping the character in mind tempers
my comments. Believe it or not. 

> Second, you comment on Declan's forwarding of a forwarding of a Herb Lin 
> call for reviewers for some study his group is doing. Ho hum.
> 

Be nice if it actually said what it was about, rather than eliciting
projections and interpretations  on the part of the reader. But, as you
say, ho hum. Presumably it is to give "scientific backing" to whatever
position Congress wants to take on upcoming issues and legislation, and to
couch various, no doubt conflicting,  agendas in scientific
doublespeak. Excuse my cynicism, but that's the way it looks to me.  

>
> Third, the issue of online porn, the CDA, the Amateur Action case, etc. 
> have been discussed many times here.
> 

No doubt everyone is tired of it, then. No problem.

> Fourth, Cypherpunks are probably more interested in making sure Big Bro 
> can't block porn, via technical means, than in advising Herb Lin on yet 
> another study.
> 

Or blocking anything else in particular. I concur. 

> Fifth, you expressed your view of Herb's study. Absent some point, what 
> is there is to discuss?
> 

Mainly I was wondering if others were as dubious as I am at moment
about the apparent level of integrity of the NAS. I should research this
matter more myself, I admit. If I'm not giving Herb proper credit,
even if I remain skeptical of the institution, I'll be the first to say so. 

> Sixth, you're always welcome to post more. Some things generate 
> interest, some don't. Don't sweat the posts that don't. I don't.
> 

Point taken. Thanks for the response. 

jbdigriz