<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.2 (Win32)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Hi there again,<br>
and I've simply had enough.<br>
Jerry, Gerry, if you have something to contradict - and I hope you do
-do so, but please in public.<br>
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">OK guys, I've encountered this attitude
in the Pirate movement just one time too many now.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">There's a shitload of arguments out
there supporting our positions, they need only to be dug up and
brought to the people's attention. But no, what do we do instead? We
produce tons of hot air, too lazy to check on even the simplest facts
but indulging in thousand-page-flamewars over obscure
pseudo-philosophical issues. Wait, you say that's one of our main
accusations towards existing political parties? Well, look into the
mirror next time you say that. </p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Take the issues of copyright and
everything related to it. There's a lot of high-profile research
showing that most of what the media industry is saying is bullshit.
There's historical evidence which clearly states how and for whose
benefit copyright laws have been developed. There are calculations
and eye-witness accounts of whom the current copyright system serves
best. Everything right under our nose, available in three mouse
clicks through google. Now how often is that mass of evidence and
arguments utilized, especially compared to the number of far-fetched
philosophical theories and statements that are "true because
they are right", as an old Soviet saying about Lenin's theory
goes?</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">Do you believe we in Germany would have
achieved what we did in the wake of the internet blockage law if we
said only "It's censorship and it's bad"? Well, luckily we
didn't stop at that. We provided evidence that the measure is
ineffective, easily circumvented, that the government's statement
that there's no other way to combat child pornography is simply not
true, that our warning about censorship is no idle threat (thanks to
the other parties for that: just several hours after the law has been
passed with the promise that it is going to be only ever used for
blocking child pornography, three proposals to extend it to gambling
sites, online gaming and filesharing sites were brought forward). So
why can't we always work like that?<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br>
Best,<br>
Boris<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>