From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Jan 2 14: 4:12 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBE2737B401 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 14:04:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from puffin.mail.pas.earthlink.net (puffin.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.139]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9836D43EE1 for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 14:04:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0545.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.44.35] helo=mindspring.com) by puffin.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.33 #1) id 18UDRb-00004I-00; Thu, 02 Jan 2003 14:04:04 -0800 Message-ID: <3E14B6F4.51E7EEDF@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 14:02:28 -0800 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dave Hayes Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter. References: <200301022119.h02LJ8100473@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: b1a02af9316fbb217a47c185c03b154d40683398e744b8a4235701bbbdcf09bf2139c53e8c397731350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Dave Hayes wrote: > Why is a larger group of people given the task of ruling what a single > person has trouble with? Given that you're the single person who has the trouble with the blacklists being enabled on the mailing lists ruled by the larger group, I would have to answer "because the large group is choosing to at least appear to be responsive to your complaints". > > Please compare and contrast the number of people subscribed to > > this mailing list with the number of humans on the planet. 8-). > > When you say "I can predict group behavior", you never really do > specify which group you are talking about. Have we been arguing > the general case or your specific all this time? The general case. The general case is that group behaviour is predicatable, within threat constraints below a certain threat level, utilizing games-theoretic modelling of the group dynamic. > Well. This shows that you are unable to understand the real truth. ;) As opposed to that "fake truth", which permits me to make useful predictions about behaviour, on which I can base my own actions, in order to successfully execute plans to completion, such as the creation of working light bulbs.... > > As someone concerned with the idea that action should not be > > taken, and that everyone should be forced to spend hours and > > hours downloading SPAM over their 300 Baud Internet link in > > Kinshasa, so that they can "filter it in their email client > > after the damage has been done", I'm sure you're prepared to > > speak on what actions have been taken in the last three incidents, > > right? > > No. People with 300 baud modems should not be subscribing to high > traffic mailing lists. Does this analogy hold elsewhere? For example, if I had a conveyor belt instead of a data link, and down the conveyor belt came opaque 1 liter bottles, but I could not know without opening the bottle whether it contained pure drinking water or raw sewage, then I should not expect someone to build a conveyor belt that sent only pure drinking water, if I lived in the desert, and could only afford a small conveyor belt. And this is because I should not be able to dictate that peope not put raw sewage into the one liter bottles on the branch of the belt that comes to my house. Basically, I should not "subscribe" to the conveyor belt system, and I should learn to live without water. > > California punishes citizens for a wide variety of "infractions", > > when their behaviour differs from what their legislature defines > > as "normal". > > Like? Pick any random 5 of the 1100 new laws that went into effect in California yesterday; at least one of them will be legislating morality (e.g. the ban on human cloning, as one example). > > Consensus reality. In the limit, your boundaries are defined > > by your beliefs. If you believe the word is flat, then for all > > practical purposes, the world is, in fact, flat. But I don't > > have to personally agree to be bound by your beliefs, and I won't, > > I don't care if you are or not. As I feel, you can believe how you > choose, and that's sacred. My initial foray into this was a reaction > to someone attempting to inflict their beliefs on me and others (e.g. > SPEWS). Actually, no. Your foray into this was in an attempt to overthrow a preexisting group decision. You were *re*acting. > > You continue because you want to change the rules of the community > > to permit SPAM to occur without a reaction from the community. > > No. I continue because I don't want my communication fettered with > people's agendas. I don't like spam any more than you do, but it > doesn't get my panties in a bunch quite like it does you and others. > My filters remove it just fine. Only because you are lucky enough to have a big conveyor belt, and are of the opinion that people who don't have large conveyor belts are inferior beings, not worthy of membership in the larger group. > I am not pro-spam. I am anti-(anti-spam). There is no axiom that says > two antis cancel into a pro. Sure there is. It's a fundamental axiom of "boolean logic". > > I continue because I don't want you to change those rules, because I > > believe to do so would damage one of the fundamental cohesive forces > > which has been responsible for the community being self-sustaining, > > and thus you are, in effect, attempting to destroy the community. > > I believe the community is already damaged by the growing restrictions > on free exchange, and will eventually be destroyed by the assumptions > of certain people who think they are trying to preserve it. Cool. Then you can just be quiet, and hang around until after that happens, and pick up the piecies from which to build your utopia. Or, since not all the protocool port numbers are take, you can go start your own utopia now, on a port other than port 25. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message