🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6fpsk1$a3u$1@news.on>, Buzz <Purphaze@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 03:34:25 +0000, draco <draco@rogers.wave.ca>
>wrote:
>
>Just because the FBI has a protected system, doesn't mean everyone
>does. Like I said earlier, you should see how wide open some of the  
>cable modem users are.

  Your point being?

  If I leave ALL of the doors and ALL of the windows in my house open,
it's still LEGALLY PROTECTED against trespass and robbery.  You
think similar protections do NOT apply to computers.

> I'm sorry, but simply naming a high security 
>government agency, doesn't change the fact that privacy does not 
>ALWAYS apply.

  Privacy always applies.

  See?  It's easy to figure out where you're wrong.  Just write down
what you honestly think, and then write down it's complete opposite.
The second statement is guaranteed to be correct.

> The net SHOULD be private, but it's not.

  That's a lie, as people have pointed out many times.

> The net SHOULD be protected, but it's not.

  That's another lie, as has also been pointed out many times.

  What part of people winning suits against spammers do you not
understand?  Spammers lose such suits because the services they abuse
are legally protected.

> Spam SHOULD be optional, but it's not. Those are the realities. 

  Smacking you with a 2x4 SHOULD be optional, but it's starting to
look mandatory.

  Alan DeKok.