🚀 go-pugleaf

scott@galileo.cuug.ab.ca (Scott Barker) wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 03:38:42 GMT, Jim Manson (jmanso19@skypoint.com) wrote:
>> Let's use your analogy and see what happens:
>
>You missed my point completely. I was not trying to defend the banned
>groups. I was pointing out that there are several *other* groups which should
>also be banned based on their name. Those other groups were *not* banned, so
>iSTAR is just full of shit. I agree completely with your extension of my
>analogy, and if iSTAR were really serious about protecting their butts, they
>should have banned many more newsgroups than they did. Instead, they caved in
>to some moron of a lawyer's play for political points.

Ok- one more time. 

You have already admitted that removing newsgroups in some cases
is a valid defense to the problem.

Therefore iStar does a risk analysis of the law, their newsgroups,
and current political climates. They decide to remove some newsgroups.

We have already established that removal can be a valid defense.

It would seem that their restraint is in your favor since you oppose
the removal in the first place.

You have now decided that they should have removed more newsgroups
if they were being sincere, not having any access to the facts or
opinions that iStar had. You have been claiming all along that
removing the newsgroups is not a defense. It has been shown that it
is. Your current argument is that they didn't go far enough. That is a

new issue.

Lowering their risk is a matter of removing the high risk groups,
it doesn't necessarily mean to remove ALL risk. Without access
to their files and attorneys you can only speculate about their
motives and with no way to determine how accurate those
speculations are they will remain speculations.