Re: Every spam is sacred, but less than the word terrorism
Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> a tapoté :
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 01:26, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > > There is a huge difference between refusing to receive mail and killing
> > > people.
> >
> > Yes.
> > Someone said the contrary?
>
> You did when you compared me and other people with similar ideas
> regarding spam control to Osama Bin Laden.
No I do not. This is your interpretation, a very boring one missing
the fact that at first I explicitely said that I was comparing method,
not acts.
> Such a comparison is offensive to the people who hate spam and the
> people who were affected by the 911 attacks.
Apparently you have absolutely no argument about the fact that a
blocking mail from people depending on the ISP they are using can be
understood as a form of terrorism.
You apparently have nothing else to say than "it's bad", "you're hurting
people". You have no rational explanation of a difference between your
approach of spam and Ben Laden approach of USA (hurting innocent
people to get someone else, not directly attacked, changing his
policy).
As we're now at 1300 km from the subject, I think that continuing this
discussion is pointless. I hesitated to use the word "terrorism" to
explain my point of view. Apparently my apprehension was justified,
this word is currently taboo for too many people and leads to endless
off-topic threads.
--
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: