________________________ R i c k O s b o r n e ________________________ I said:
I appreciate the inference as to my (lack of) intelligence. ;)
To which Vulis wrote:
Your lack of ethics, rather. You choose to work for someone who chooses to use inadequate Microsoft software, and you brandish these choices as an excuse to interfere with somene's free speech.
I'm not brandishing anything as an excuse, simply stating this: I should not have to walk through the street (get my email) wearing 4 inches of kevlar (using spam filters), *just in case* someone decides to whip out a submachine gun (spam). It should not me my job to defend myself from psychos, rather people should have to ask my permission to infringe upon my space and time. Microsoft (and I can't believe I'm saying this) actually is doing it right for a change: when you sign up to be a part of any of their "clubs" (SBN, etc), you get asked if you want to receive further mail. How am I taking away from Sanford's right to free speech by just spamming him back? I sgree with this weekend's discussion on arp attacks: technically, they should be no different than spam attacks. WHy then should he (or whoever) have the right to spam me without fear of retribution?
I'm fairly confident that they will withstand whatever attacks these half-brained wannabe hackers and anti-free-speech hooligans can invent.
Actually, and this is just MHO, I don't really care if the 100 or so spams/arps I send them are but a mosquito's bite to them. It makes *me* feel better. I'm not in this necessarily to shut anyone down (though it would be a nice side-effect), just to annoy them as much as they annoy me. Like I said, I'm more of the passive-agressive type, so I'm not here to wage a war, just a few small skirmishes. _________ o s b o r n e @ g a t e w a y . g r u m m a n . c o m _________ "A heart of gold beats under that big fiberglass croissant, Arthur. And thank goodness for it! It's spirit like hers that allowed us to thwart Chairface's evil scheme and thwart we did."