🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <371DA69F.7EDB@virgin.net>, Osiris  <orion.osiris@virgin.net> wrote:
>Peter da Silva wrote:
>> If demon hadn't ignored it, it still would have done nothing. By the time
>> he noticed it, it had already been propogated worldwide to millions of
>> servers, each of which would still have a copy available for any reader to
>> see no matter how thoroughly Demon scrubbed their disks, and most of which
>> were outside the UK and therefore beyond his legal reach.

>Good, so you finally accept that the argument that by the time the 
>victim sees the material in question, it's too late to issue a cancel,
>even if he knows how to do so.

No.

>That's what I've been saying all along.

I have already stated that I believe the correct response to speech is more
speech, but if the victim wants to remove the defamatory speech and has that
right then sending a cancel is the way to do it.

Why?

Because the very same network that propogated the message will propogate the
cancel.

In fact, cancels generally propogate faster than the message itself, because
of a quirk in INN.

-- 
This is The Reverend Peter da Silva's Boring Sig File - there are no references
to Wolves, Kibo, Discordianism, or The Church of the Subgenius in this document
"Twenty-two points, plus triple-word-score, plus fifty points for using all
 my letters.  Game's over.  I'm outta here." -- Melissa ... by Kwyjibo.