God, Last summer we had the whole "Spam as Free Speech Debate". Now Rick Osborne drags it up again. You can not retaliate against free speech, Rick. That's a bad thing, plain and simple, black and white. Some of your metaphors are kinda harsh, and a bit cartoonish. On or About 12 May 97 at 13:43, Rick Osborne wrote:
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)
Well, you are doing OK so far.
wearing 4 inches of kevlar (using spam filters),
It depends on what street you are walking, here. Kevelar *may* be in order. What's your problem with your 'delete' key? Broken?
*just in case* someone decides to whip out a submachine gun (spam).
Now, here's where you start to go really crazy. Spam as a weapon? Please, Rick get ahold of yourself. It's just e-mail. Nothing scary or harmful, right? Right?
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.
You got a website? You post to usenet? I know you post to this list. By now, everyone knows that any of those things are as good as giving away your e-mail address. Maybe that's unethical, but it's a fact. And if you do have a website, it's an open invitation for me to send you advertisements, just like the yellow pages.
How am I taking away from Sanford's right to free speech by just spamming him back?
Free speech is a right. You have the right to make some snotty reply, but no right to intentionally harm. You are doing wrong if you try to harm someone who is exercising their right to free speech. Rick, what if someone decided they did not like an opinion you expressed on this list and did the same thing to you? See, it's all the same thing. You, nor anyone else, has a right to lash out at someone for something they say or some ad they send you.
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?
Because FREE SPEECH IS A RIGHT WE HAVE! Why all this talk of retribution? No one has a right to retaliate, get it? First Amendment? I didn't read in there the right to get back at some poor advertisers, did you?
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.
Free Speech : Good Mail Bombs : Bad
It makes *me* feel better.
Ahhh, at last the point. Are you a self centred ass, who's personal feelings are more important that the Constitution? Feel better? How about when those black suited ninjas break into your house to steal your rights? That's my metaphor of what you are doing to people who spam you...
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.
It's talk like this that those good old boys in D.C. love. Bad internet, bad. Um, there is no war against spammers. Did you know that? You could be doing so much more with your time. Please reconsider. Thank you. No war, no battles, no skirmishes, no need for "Anti-Spam Laws". Just be nice, and everything will work out for the best. I'm more worried about this anti bomb making recipe law that the government is yammering about now. Ross =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: (408) 259-2795