[Mailman-Developers] Opening up a few can o' worms here...

[Chuq Von Rospach]

On 7/17/02 8:39 AM, "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
> No, but I wouldn't hold the list op responsible for not keeping the
> info, 

YOU wouldn't, but that's not the typical response. It's unsafe to take "my
response" and use it to generalize to "all users", unless you really know
you're thinking like the average/typical user.

>> Take a look at the court system. You're so far in the minority it's not
>> funny (really not funny). Have you ever read the instruction manual for a
>> toaster? The warning pages in the instruction manual, that say things like
>> "do not use toaster in shower"? Because if they DON'T say that, they get
>> sued because someone does?
> 
> Case law?  Yes, there are silly disclaimers, yes some of them
> correspond directly to cases.  Hair dryer in shower, yes.  *Toaster*?
> Naw; if that has a shower disclaimer, it's merely ass-covering.

You may see it as ass-covering. Have you talked to your lawyers recently
about these issues? I have. Not fun, either.

>>> Except that the spam isn't the *problem*.  The *spammers* are.
>> 
>> Sorry. That's like saying "bullets aren't a problem, guns are". If you get
>> shot, you don't waste time arguing semantics like this. Unless, I guess,
>> you're a libertarian. But frankly, most of the libertarians I know who HAVE
>> been shot (instead of arguing about what they'd do if, theoretically, they
>> were shot) stop arguing semantics, too.
> 
> No, neither bullets *nor* guns are the problem: *CRIMINALS ARE*.

Except that most people shot in their own home are shot by their own gun by
someone they know, not a criminal. Or, at least, they're not a criminal
until the bullet hits.  You're strawmanning again, jay.

This is, in fact, a great example in the real world of the situation I had
this weekend in the email world. The poor idiot who spammed my users out of
his address book wasn't a criminal -- until the minute he made that mistake
in judgement and sent that e-mail. So while it's fun to run around screaming
about the criminals being the problem, the most common problems we face are
otherwise reasonable people who make mistakes or have lapses in judgement,
not the guy in the alley with the gun and the blackjack. But it's a lot
easier to talk about criminals and build a rhetoric and avoid having to deal
with the tough situation of finding ways to protect people from their
lapses, where there was no conscious intent to do something.

> I sometimes question why I have to keep pointing that out.

Because you're having trouble convincing us you're right. Because you
aren't. Because you're building a strawman that fits your philosophy but not
the reality.

>> interpreted. But, pass...)
> 
> "for the common defense" was loudly shouted down as clouding the point;
> that's good enough for me.  If you're interested in bandying this, we
> can do it off list; maybe I'll learn something.  :-)

Nope. Pass. I'm already too close to a philosophical argument that'll drive
this list bonkers. I'm not crossing the line... I hope.

> You may choose to think that this is my real motivation if you're so
> inclined. 

Thank you. Because if it looks like a duck and smells like a duck, it rhymes
with Niagara. Oh, wait....

> Well, that sounds like a fairly broad ad hominem... but I think you're
> better than that.  ;-)

Yeah. Usually my ad hominens are more narrowly targeted. I'll try harder
next time.



-- 
Chuq Von Rospach, Architech
chuqui@plaidworks.com -- http://www.chuqui.com/

Someday, we'll look back on this, laugh
nervously and change the subject.