🚀 go-pugleaf

Alan DeKok wrote:

>
>
>   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?
>

What's to get? You think you are on a private line. Your not.I simply reminded you
that these kinds of things can happen.
I never said it was OK, just that it happens , kapish?

>   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.

What are you asking me for advice on what should be done?  I agree
with this, but I don't know what to do about it.

>   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?
>
>

You are confused, I said that you are not guaranteed any privacy.Read the post. It
right above. Why, are you guaranteed privacy?
Guess I was right then eh? What I think is unimportant, the fact
remains, the net has, and will be abused. Like it or not.
Don't mistake this with me accepting this. Just pointing out.

> >>   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.

I understand and agree with that, what I didn't agree with was
your expectation of  privacy on the internet. Nor do I think that
spam is going to bring down the Freenet tomorrow. Unless you have
news otherwise. The Freenet will hopefully survive long enough to make
the financial adjustments or upgrades.


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

Where did I say it is acceptable. What post are you reading?I said possible. Big
difference there bubba.

> > 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.
>
>

No, but it is the start of a trend which may help. It is some formor recourse.
Maybe spammer's will think twice.
Oh, I forgot, you just want to hang them and be done
with it. You keep implying that I find this acceptable,
where do you keep getting that from.
ONCE AND FOR ALL- I DO NOT FIND SPAM ACCEPTABLE.
How many times do I have to keep saying that? My point again,
in plain elementary english so you can understand.
I don't like spam, but it's here and it's part of the internet.
Like it or not. Your going to get it cause your on the internet.

Is that plain enough for you to absorb?

>   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 is the point of this statement? Ask someone who has beenassaulted for that
information. I would assume, that a conviction
would serve as a start. If I use your way of thinking,  your saying
that beating up someone should go unpunished, since it serves no
purpose. Has this gone over your head?


>   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.

It is illegal to attack someone. It should be illegal to attack someone's
computer too. I have never disputed that. It just happens.

>   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?
>
>

Yea, right, I said computer attacks are fine. Perhaps youcould point out where I
said that?
Once again I said "it's part of the game, like it or not".
Why do you continue to argue this point?
Maybe you have nothing better to do than argue.

> >  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.
>

If that is the best method of dealing with it, then so be it. For someonewith such
great knowledge of the internet, you seem rather
clueless as to how to resolve the problem. you say that you are so
much more knowledgeable then me, yet this is the only plan you
suggest. "Call your Government"  How insightful!

> >>   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.
>
>

I could give a flying banana, whether you respect me. You are trulyfull of
yourself. You have an obvious problem with shifting blame.
Not to mention NO PLAN or METHOD. If your so dead against
spam, then do something about it.

>   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?
>

I told you, I find it less of an issue "to me". Plain and simpleand you just don't
like that. You feel everyone should agree with
you or they are fools. Everyone should be up in arms against
the deadly spam, before it kills the computer world. Well,
I just don't agree. I feel that the computer world will survive
just fine, considering it doubles every 12 months or so. Our
environment won't, so that is more important to me. Argue all
you want, call me all the names you want, but I stand by that
opinion.

> >>   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*.
>
>

Never said I had more understanding of the subject, than anyone.
I did say the solutions weren't very effective. That is why it is still
a problem, because no one has an effective way of dealing with it.
I never said the cost's were acceptable, I just said it's part of the
internet that is almost unavoidable and certainly no surprise.


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

> > 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.

And your definition of a clue is, to bitch about it to people that don't findit as
irritating as you? Talk about arrogance.

>
>
> >> > [ 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.  >snipped

>
>
> > 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.
>
>

When are you going to stop deciding what I consider acceptable.Are you the
all-knowing, all-seeing? I don't find it acceptable,
but it still happens.  There are measures taken to avoid it,
and prosecute those who break that law. why did you have
a better way? If so, please post it.


> >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.

No, just correcting who ever said they were out of business.They are not out of
business and someone thought they were.
Every post you make, you try to put words in my mouth. Give
it a rest for cryin' out loud. Did you guy's even try these sites
before saying they were gone?  No.


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

> >snipped

> >>   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?

No, I understand that no one has the right to invade yourspace, but what I've said
all along, it's the nature of the beast.
I don't like the thought of that anymore than you, but you seem
to act like it is a total surprise that it happens. I just said, it's
part of the internet. I didn't cause that. I just observed it.
It seems because I've made that observation you have labeled me
pro-spam, pro-theift, pro-whatever.  I think the entire thread has
gone over your head. So how about ending it here?

Buzz
Ottawa.