On Tue, 2018-12-04 at 07:53 -0500, Celejar wrote: > On Mon, 03 Dec 2018 23:56:22 -0500 Jim Popovitch <jim@k4vqc.com> > wrote: > > > On Mon, 2018-12-03 at 22:33 -0500, Marvin Renich wrote: > > > Are you saying that because others have, in the past, resorted to > > > violence that it becomes justifiable? > > > > No, I'm saying lessons learned from History are to always be > > respected > > and not ignored. > > > > > Over an offer to help that was sent to the wrong place and was > > > thus > > > not answered? > > > > Context, it's always important. The offerS have been given by > > several > > ... > > > > Sorry, that is just plain wrong. > > > > Which part? The part about context mattering? > > Maybe the part implying that revolutionary violence can be appropriate > against listmasters who provide a free service - which you are > perfectly free to opt out of - simply because they fail (in your view) > to provide better anti-spam measures? > > This is what you wrote: > > > How long should Dave wait out the problem before insulting folks? 1 > > month, 2 months, 6 months, 1 year, 5 years, 10 years, 25 years? At > > what point should constructive feedback yield to insults, and at > > what point should insults yield to violence? > > > > If your answer to that last question is "never", then I suggest you > > study some history. ;-) > > Celejar What I wrote in no way implies that "revolutionary violence can be appropriate against listmasters who provide a free service", today. HOWEVER, I do believe that, after some period of time, indignant words, public protests, and eventually (as we see all the time with major spam operations) LEO takedowns, become legitimate and appropriate actions against listmasters, and any sender, who continues to flagrantly avoid best practices. There are many many other lists, outside of Debian, that have many many more members, that don't have the pervasive and perpetual spam problems that the Debian lists do. -Jim P.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part