From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Dec 31 3:25:27 2002 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 356A437B401 for ; Tue, 31 Dec 2002 03:25:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1B9043EC2 for ; Tue, 31 Dec 2002 03:25:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBVBPG181119; Tue, 31 Dec 2002 03:25:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200212311125.gBVBPG181119@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 03:25:11 -0800 From: Dave Hayes 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 [ We're at it again, random CCs stripped out of courtesy ] Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: ... >> Terry Lambert writes: >> > Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> Terry Lambert writes: >> >> > Why? >> >> > Even unlimited freedom of speech is not a guarantee of an audience. >> >> >> >> This is the argument used by people who wish to fool people into >> >> thinking there is no freedom of speech. I will refrain from addressing >> >> it here. >> > >> > Again, why? I believe in the (acknowledged by the 4th ammendment) >> > right to free speech. That doesn't mean that people have to listen >> > to me, or to take what I say to heart, as if it were gospel. The >> > right of someone to proselytize me stops at the point I slam my >> > front door in their face. >> >> You are not allowed to place your hand on their jaw and close >> their mouth. > > But I'm allowed to slam the door, right? It's your door. It's their mouth. The analogy doesn't apply in an electronic medium. Controlling another's communication is not honorable. Tuning out unwanted communication is honorable. The distinction is obvious, even if you don't want it to be. >> > Your argument is that I should not be allowed to close my own door, >> > or to buy locks for that door from a third party. >> >> Nope, not even close. > > A blacklist is a just lock that you obtain from a third party, > which will not open for people you don't want coming through > your door. Nonsense. Blacklists are evil, most always generate false positives, and have nothign to do with locks and doors. >> > Understanding is not a guarantee of acceptance or acquiesence. >> >> You presume I want either state. I don't. All I "want" is for people >> to let others make their own decisions. The arguments you present lead >> to exactly the opposite state. > > Hardly; people can make their own decisions as much as they > want, particularly when it comes to blacklisting of SPAM'mers > by their ISP: discontinue their ISP service, and obtain service > from some other ISP. Exactly what I recommend when a blacklisting service includes innocents in an attempt to force others to do their will. Zealotry, even in the name of science, is a strong poison. ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< It is a poor workman who blames his tools. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message