🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <351999F9.F2DDEE48@hotmail.com>, Buzz  <purphaze@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Alan DeKok wrote:
>>
>>   My HOUSE is on the street 24/7.  My COMPUTER is on the net 24/7.
>> What the hell is the difference?  If someone abuses either one, it
>> should be against the law.  If someone abuses either one, I get mad,
>> and do what I can to stop it.
>
> If you thought you were guaranteed any type of privacy on the
> internet,then YOUR the complete idiot. What the hell were you
> expecting? Your own little private world?

  If you thought you were guaranteed any type of privacy on the
street...

  Should I come break into your house like people break into my
computer?  Don't you get the analogy yet?

  I *expect* people to try to break into my house.  I *expect* people
to try to break into my computer.  I get mad in either case, and both
should be illegal.

  Your position here appears to be "The computer is net-connected, so
it's fair game!"   I could hold a similar (and just as stupid
position) of "Your body is on the street, so I'll do to it what I
want."  After all, if you wanted privacy, you'd stay locked behind
closed doors, right?

>>   Yup, you're an idiot.  This is a retarded analogy.
>
>And your rude. When your on the net, your exposed, like it or not.You connect
>knowing full well that many others are connected and
>that some may have the resources or know-how to "send you spam".
>What part of this is escaping you?

  Hmm... I thought I had made it so obvious that an encephalitic child
would understand it.  

  Being exposed to attackers physically or via the net is not what I'm
upset about.  I understand the risks.

  What gets me mad is people actually attacking me.

>IF YOUR ON THE NET THEN YOU ARE SUBJECT TO SPAM.

  If you're on the street, you're subject to robbery.  What's your
point?

  Are you honestly going to stand there and say "Someone invading my
house is bad, but someone invading my computer is acceptable." ??

> What kind of an immature reply is this? I simply stated that I as
> well have a 24-7 connection, but receive minimal spam.
>
> Your acting like a child.

  And your grammar sucks.  Next insult, please.

> You know, "Buzz" is trying to understand it, and so far all I
> have"understood" is that many spammers that have attacked companies
> and caused great problems have been sued for it. When I ask for
> names of companies that have been crippled by this, I get names of
> companies that have successfully sued them.

  Oh, so a *successful* suit makes the attack acceptable.

  I'll get 4 of my buddies to beat the shit out of you.  When we're
convicted, will you feel better?  Will it make the beating worthwhile
for you?

  What part of this do you not understand?  Attacking someone and
causing them damage is a BAD THING and should be made illegal.  I
don't care if it's a person, a corporation, or if the attack is
physical or computer.

  You seem to think physical attacks are bad, but computer attacks are
fine.  After all, if someone shuts down your company for days, you can
always sue them, right?

>  and, yes I have some
> faith in our Government. If you don't then fine. You still have yet
> to post an effective way for the average internet user, who doesn't
> get much spam, to help fight spam.

  "Write the government" isn't an effective way?  I thought you had
faith in them.

>>   No, it was because the *recipient* was being made to pay for
>> advertising...  As people have repeatedly tried to hammer through your
>> thick skull.
>
> More insults....sheesh! You need to learn respect for others..Sorry
> if I don't measure up to your standards on this public forum.

  I don't respect you because you have an obvious problem with
learning anything.

  People have repeatedly pointed out the problems and costs associated
with junk faxes, and spam.  Yet your responses still show no
recognition of this problem.

  Are you actually *reading* what people write here?  Does any of it
make sense to you?

>>   It's an uninformed opinion, phrased in a condescending and insulting
>> way.  (Unlike mine, which are *informed* opinions, phrased in a
>> condescending and insulting way.)
>
> I have read my previous post and find no insults directed at
> anyone.Uniformed, may be, but not insulting. The fact that I stated
> the opinion was mine, should allow me some room.

  You were telling people with MORE experience and MORE knowledge than
you that they didn't understand the problem as well as you do.  You
were telling them that their solutions weren't good ones.  You were
telling them that the costs to *them* of spam were acceptable to
*you*.

  That's rude, insulting, ignorant, and positively dumb.  What the
hell else did you expect?

>>   If you can't take what you dish out, buddy, go cry to Mama.
>
>"go cry to mama"? What is it that you think I cannot take?

  You've insulted people with your ignorant comments.  I thought it
was the only language you understood...

> Like deforestation isn't a crisis?, that's all I implied, that it is
> a crisismore relevant to me than spam. Where do you find a problem
> with that statement. Whether you agree or not. It's a valid
> statement that I still stand behind.

  Fine.  Go deal with deforestation, and leave spam fighting to people
who have a clue.

>> > [ blah blah forest crap snipped ]
>>
>>   Yeah, whatever.  My heart bleeds.  If those people had brains to
>> plant trees in the first place, they wouldn't have a problem!  Even
>> so, all they've got to do is run to Big Mama Government, and She'll
>> solve the problem!
>>
>>   ($0.02 says you won't notice the parody of your own opinion...)
>
> This is your idea on how to resolve the problem? They should of
> plantedmore tree's?  Funny how the top world scientists and
> ecologist's haven't figured that one out as well as you have. I can
> see you spent some time researching your answer.

  Repeated for the terminally clueless:

 $0.02 says you won't notice the parody of your own opinion...

  Where's my $0.02?

> 30%-60% of what? computer resources, money, time?Seems that they
> still make money or they would'nt do it.

  Companies still make money, despite people physically breaking into
their offices and stealing equipment.

  You seem to think such theft is acceptable.

>The companies that you or Chris have mentioned are
>still in business and making money, or have sued the
>spammer for "substancial" amounts.

  And that makes it A-OK in your opinion.

  I'll just rob your house now...  You'll get money from your
insurance, so I'm sure you won't mind.  It's not a big deal to you, is
it?

>What I'm more afraid of is 30-60% loss of an un-renewable
>resource. Rain forest's don't bounch back in a week or two,
>and no amount of money will replace them immediatly.

  Apparently no amount of money will correct your ignorance or grammar.

> [ yada yada, more forest crap snipped ]

>As far as I'm concerned, you have nothing but insult, after insult
>as for lack of anything better to say. Better left unsaid.

  No, as far as you can *tell* all I say is insults.

  There's real facts and reasoning in there, but you've missed them
completely.

>>   Let me be pedantic: Someone steals MY resources for THEIR crap.  I
>> don't care WHAT kind of resources they steal from me.  It's still
>> THEFT.  ('cause the key word is "steal", not "resources".  Get it?)
>
>I still feel that the same goes for paper products. The
>only difference seem to be the paper ad's paid for the
>paper and spammers didn't pay for the server's hard drive.

  My comments went right over your head, didn't they?

  Alan DeKok.