Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 22:12:09 -0800 From: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter. Message-ID: <200301030612.h036CE103766@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes:
> 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'm not the only person. You are wrong here.
> I would have to answer "because the large group is choosing to at
> least appear to be responsive to your complaints".
This makes no sense.
>> > 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.
So you assert.
>> 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....
No, more as mirrored to the comment which you snipped:
> That what people who don't understand observer effect always say,
> after they've misapplied the idea to some macro phenomenon, and
> are trying very hard to justify their statements. 8-).
I just said the same thing back to you with fewer words. ;)
>> > 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?
It's not an analogy. It's a statement, supported by considering if
it's converse is true. If they -should- be subscribing to a high
traffic mailing list, then they will have at least one irrelevant
message coming down their pipe. If people with 300 baud modems suffer
from irrelevant messages clogging their pipe, then it is also true
that they suffer from -relevant- messages clogging their pipe...the
pipe doesn't distinguish. Thus, we should all refrain from posting
lest we cost someone with a 300 baud modem money.
That doesn't make sense, at least to me.
Of course, the real fallacy is that the cost of downloading from a 300
baud modem probably exceeds the cost of a 28.8k one...
>> > 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).
I'm not aware of these, nor do I think I want to be heh. I know how
the ban on human cloning must affect you, being that you are a science
zealot. I sympathize, but understand the concerns.
>> > 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.
When that group's decisions affects people outside that group, this is
not good.
>> > 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.
So not true. I didn't say inferior, I said "they need to get
better equipment". You don't try to keep ice cream in a cooler and
complain about the cost of ice.
>> 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'm not talking in that space, apparently you missed last months
debate eh? ;)
>> > 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.
I can, and I can also speak out.
------
Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
A Law of Computer Programming:
Make it possible for programmers to write in English and you
will find the programmers cannot write in English.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200301030612.h036CE103766>