Larry writes:
You are wrong, these people *are* elected. They are elected by
the millions of users who do not want spam. The answer is simple
but for some reason you refuse to see it. I would gladly grant
all necessary authority to my ISP to act in any way that benefits
me and my wishes.
Nonsense. Democratic forums are
open, transparent, accountable,
feature regular elections, laws,
constitutions and so on. There
are no such institutions on the
net. There are technically capable
but otherwise unsophisticated
lads running around pretending
they are the law. They aren't.
Larry continues:
As for your characterization of Paul Vixie, I have only this to
say. There's an old saying in the legal community that goes like
this: "If the law is on your side, argue the law. If the facts
are on your side, argue the facts. But if neither the law *or*
the facts are on your side, then assassinate the character of
your opponents".
It seems pretty clear to me that your only recourse is to assault
those people who would work in the interests of the greater good
of the users of the Internet, or, more to the point, who would
disagree with you. On the surface, you appear to be quite the
hypocrite, attacking others for allegedly...attacking others.
In a civil forum I have drawn
into question the activities of
persons acting in what I believe
to be unethical and unscrupulous
manners. I have attacked no-one
and interfered with no person's
civil liberties, rights and/or
freedoms. Whereas Mr. Vixie
regularly trades in the violation
of these rights. With nothing more
to back him up but technical
know-how and a gang of fellow
geekthugs. A very unfortunate
situation I suspect time will
alter to a conclusion more in
line with our traditons or
democracy than with Vixie et
al's propensity to totalitarian
despotism.
Respectfully,
Bob Allisat
Free Community Network _ bob@fcn.net . http://fcn.net
http://fcn.net/allisat _ http://fcn.net/draft
Nonsense. Democratic forums are
open, transparent, accountable,
feature regular elections, laws,
constitutions and so on. There
are no such institutions on the
I don't think anyone ever claimed the RBL is a democratic institution.
Though this should go without saying, it certainly is not. Still, what it
does, it does well, and I truly appreciate its existence.
I think the only real freedom with regards to the RBL is the freedom
of choice: Upstreams are not *required* to subscribe to it, and customers
are not *required* to obtain service from RBL-ized upstreams.
net. There are technically capable
but otherwise unsophisticated
lads running around pretending
they are the law. They aren't.
I think not.
manners. I have attacked no-one
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Very cute. See above.
regularly trades in the violation
of these rights. With nothing more
to back him up but technical
know-how and a gang of fellow
geekthugs. A very unfortunate
situation I suspect time will
alter to a conclusion more in
line with our traditons or
democracy than with Vixie et
al's propensity to totalitarian
despotism.
I sure hope it does not change as such. Then again, I don't consider
it to be an unfortunate situation. The only unfortunate situation is
that you are a k00k who types with a 40-column terminal, fails to function
on a rational manner, and tries to protect freedoms that are not violated
in the first place.
Gee, this is getting boring and non-operational. Where are those backhoes
and gophers when we need them? 
<VIC-20-MODE>
What makes you think
that a global network
of private networks
is a democratic forum?
Who's definition of
"democratic?"
You don't even live
in the same democracy
as the majority of the
users on the net (you
are in Canada and not
the U.S.A.) Should
your definition of
democracy override
their definition of
the same? One of the
founding principles
of a democracy is
the right to private
property. Every
piece of equipment
on this network which
is not owned by the
various governments is
by definition private
property. If you want a
democratic network,
go create a government
body to buy all of
the equipment and pay
for all of the comm.
links and then that
government body can run
their network in whatever
form of "democracy" they
choose. Until then,
the people who own the
equipment and directly pay
the comm. bills have the
right to protect their
networks as they see
fit. If their customers
don't like the way their
provider does business
they always have the
right to choose a
different
provider.
</VIC-20-MODE>
Furthermore in the U.S.A. they have the democratic right to freedom of
association. If they don't want to associate (do business with or
communicate) with spammers, net-kooks or anyone else for that matter
it is their right not to do so. Your right to free speech ends at the
private property line/perimeter routers of their network.
- -----Original Message-----
Adam writes:
I sure hope it does not change as such. Then again, I don't consider
it to be an unfortunate situation. The only unfortunate situation is
that you are a k00k who types with a 40-column terminal, fails to
function on a rational manner, and tries to protect freedoms that are
not violated in the first place.
Interesting. As in not. The
discussion from your side has
degraded into name calling.
Bob Allisat
Free Community Network _ bob@fcn.net . http://fcn.net
http://fcn.net/allisat _ http://fcn.net/draft
Hah!
Dude, the operational nature
of this thread has like totally
worn off. Kindly move this
thread to Jared's rbl-discuss
list, or drop it completely.
Warmest regards,
-asr
Nonsense. Democratic forums are
open, transparent, accountable,
feature regular elections, laws,
constitutions and so on. There
are no such institutions on the
net. There are technically capable
but otherwise unsophisticated
lads running around pretending
they are the law. They aren't.
So go complain to the law. And quit wasting my bandwidth lest I send you a
bill. Payable in US $, that is.
It seems pretty clear to me that your only recourse is to assault
those people who would work in the interests of the greater good
of the users of the Internet, or, more to the point, who would
disagree with you. On the surface, you appear to be quite the
hypocrite, attacking others for allegedly...attacking others.
In a civil forum I have drawn
into question the activities of
persons acting in what I believe
to be unethical and unscrupulous
manners. I have attacked no-one
and interfered with no person's
civil liberties, rights and/or
freedoms.
No attacks on anyone....
Whereas Mr. Vixie
regularly trades in the violation
of these rights. With nothing more
to back him up but technical
know-how and a gang of fellow
geekthugs.
Except, of course, right here...
A very unfortunate
situation I suspect time will
alter to a conclusion more in
line with our traditons or
democracy than with Vixie et
al's propensity to totalitarian
despotism.
Say, Bob...a little free with the "our traditions of democracy" stuff
aren't you? Considering you're a Canadian and I don't believe that Canada
is a democracy, per se...
Oh...and for the record, I'd consider calling someone a totalitarian despot
an attack (not to mention redundant).
Bug off, Kook.
Spammers should be investigated by Ken Starr!
Dean Robb
PC-EASY computer services
(757) 495-EASY [3279]
It was my understanding, based in part on titles like Prime Minister, et
al, that the Canadian form of government is technically a modified
Constitutional Monarchy and not a Representative Democracy (hence the use
of "per se"). If I am in error, I hereby extend my apologies and assure
one and all that no offense was intended.
Polite corrections, if in order, are appreciated!
Spammers should be investigated by Ken Starr!
Dean Robb
PC-EASY computer services
(757) 495-EASY [3279]