Re: Every spam is sacred
On Thursday, Jun 12, 2003, at 06:21 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
This is called terrorism.
I'm distressed that you call a person's or organization's decision not
to accept mail from a certain ISP "terrorism." That's a horrible abuse
of the word, and, if accepted, leaves no term to describe what most
everyone else understands terrorism to be, an example of which you give
later in your message.
I'm even further disturbed by your apparent disdain of my right to
freely associate or not to associate with whoever I please.
You fight innocent people to make them
support another ISP, by fear.
Like a Ben Laden would kill 3000 innocent people to make the USA
government change his policy in Africa.
That comparison is unconscionable, and begs for a version of Goodwin's
Law.
(indeed, I'm not saying that killing someone is equal to squish his
mails)
Nice. I suppose that explains the purpose of the previous sentence, huh?
We're definitely in the era of "collateral damage" (term invented
during the Gulf War in 1999 about Iraqi citizens, if I'm correct)
You're not correct. For one thing, the Gulf War wasn't in 1999.
but
I'm not sure we should be glad of it.
Reply to: