[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Nonsense, absolute nonsense... [Fwd: HipCrime and Spam]
On 12 Sep 96 at 20:03, Rabid Wombat replied to a spammer with an
Attila the Hun (looter and plunderer) mentality:
> > > However, since others may think like you, I guess I'll have to
> > > add a line above my link stating that email not related to the
> > > purpose of my site will be happily proof-read at the rate of
> > > $200 per hour,
The looter speaking here:
> > How can you hope to
> > enforce it? It's a joke, right? :) Maybe not, since it's on your
> > sig-line.
that is one of their way of seing life: as long as you have the
physical means to perform an action and that nobody else can stop
you, you can do it.
> > A website is
> > an open invitation to comment and e-mail.
Again, he doesn't ask himself why the page, put into existence (most
of the time by the good will of the creator and owner of the account,
paying out of his own pocket from his own work) does not bear the
mention: "we invite spam"
> > Better password your
> > site if you want to solve this problem.
"Civilisation, is the transition from a public society to a society
of privacy" (approximate quote from Ayn Rand). We have laws that
hope to accomplish that, i.e. trying to set men free from other mens.
Passwording is like putting a lock on a door: to prevent intrusion
from peoples that have different values. Note that the trespassing
is *always* done in favor of the looters at the expense of the
> > Then no-one can visit it,
> > and no-one can send out a spider to get your e-mail address.
> > That's what I do, send out a robot to bring back e-mail addresses.
> > Of course I only send to makers of software, and my product
> > applys to their world.
I'm glad the tresspasser limits the field of his victims.
> Comment is one thing. Mass junk mail is another. I'd view "comment"
> as expressing an opinion. If I put an "email to:" tag on a web site,
> I'm inviting "comment" on the information I've placed in public view
> - there's reasonable expectation that the "comment" will be
> pertinent, even if it is only "Your automated gif sucks." This isn't
> quite the same as inviting completely irrelevent junk mail, and I
> still fail to see how you make this leap of logic.
He does it very simply: by blanking out the nature of his acts.
Only, there is no logic in this act, only feelings.
> You are on a public mailing list, aren't you? You have some degree
> of expectation as to the pertinence of topics discussed on said
> list, don't you? Even if it is c'punks? The same holds true for
> newsgroups. The vast majority of 'net users dislike off-topic
> discussion; they subscribe to mailing lists and newsgroups to
> discuss topics of relevence and mutual interest.
> It is highly
> self-centered of you to assume the "right" to waste their time with
> unwanted and completely off-topic communication.
No, it is not self-centered at all, it is only done on the impulsion
of the moment. If he were smart, he would realize that reputation
takes years to build and seconds to destroy.
> > If you don't want spam in your mail box:
> > 1. Don't have a website or don't put your e-mail address on your
> > website
If you don't want to get mugged, don't walk in the street; if you
don't want to get killed by a mugger, chase him and offer him you
wallet, then kill yourself.
I grew in an extended family where there was always money and
wallets on the kitchen table. But no matter how broke one of us were,
if it did not belong to him, he did not take it. It is, of course,
out of respect for life (and it's economic extension, the right to
> > 2. Don't post to newsgroups
Don't exists... ( because to him, the use of force is legitimate and
there is no such right as the right to live, as long as he's got
stronger arms than yours)
> > 3. Don't post to mailing lists
> > 4. If you post do so anonymously
Act covertly, Live in fear.
> When you exercise your "right" to free speech to the extent that you
> piss off a large segment of society, society will react by reducing
> its measure of freedom of speech.
I won't start a discussion here. I will simply state that words have
a definite meaning and that by twisting them (I suppose innocently in
your case), you give them a moral sanction.
Jean-Francois Avon, Montreal QC Canada
"One of theses centuries, the brutes, private or public, who believe
that they can rule their betters by force, will learn the lesson of
what happens when brute force encounters mind and force."
- Ragnar Danneskjold
PGP key at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon
ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891