Re: Every spam is sacred
Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> a tapoté :
> Refusing to do business with someone is not a violent act.
>
> When someone refuses to do business with you it does not cause terror, maybe
> some anxiety about your future financial prospects, but not terror.
Economic sanctions can kill more people than a war. I let you judge
for yourself whether it's obviously a "non violent act" or not.
> There is a huge difference between refusing to receive mail and killing
> people.
Yes.
Someone said the contrary?
> > But what is new is, in fact, what collateral damage means now. And
> > it's not "damage caused by a militar operation, such as a bombing, to
> > objects or persons not themselves the intended target of the attack."
> > but "damage caused by a militar operation, such as bombing, to objects
> > or persons themselves the intended target of the attack, to make their
> > government, not itself the intended target of the attack, give up."
>
> Yes, you mean the way it was used in WW2 and in many of the plans for nuclear
> war.
Yes I think.
I would enjoy a lot if you can find some official text of this period
that plainly use the expression "collateral damage" to designate this
method of doing war?
(but by private mail, nothing to do here)
Would it be a surprise to you if I tell you that this way to the war
can be called terrorism - despite the fact it may have the been the
better way to do it?
> > And in your case, we exactly in the new definition, not in the old
> > one. You'll deliberately target people you know innocent to make
> > their ISP change it's policy.
>
> No. I will use whichever spam blocking list results in the most spam being
> removed from my in-box with the least number of false positives. I don't
> mind what the policy of an anti-spam service is as long as it delivers decent
> results.
That's a point of view.
Note that the decency of the results depends highly of the policy of
an anti-spam service.
> Also I have to do for my clients what they wish. Some of them keep
> demanding better spam protection so I have to keep doing what they
> wish.
That's perfectly understandable.
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Reply to: