I am not aware that anyone is prosecuting scammers ;) See my recent article on this topic. And as to what you can't help but think, you should see someone for that, because you are not operating in reality there, and I have alreeadey said so several times.
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > > Again, so I am clear. > > You are OK with this kid's illegal activity because he dug up some > potentially illegal behavior on Palin's part? > > How does that jive with your stance on privacy issues for everyone > else? We can't be asking people for 'papers' to see if they are in > this country legally, but its OK to snoop around someone's email - so > long as you find they are involved in illegal activity. > > I cannot help but think if this was anyone else but a prominent figure > in the Republican party, you would be agreeable to the sentence. And > would be able to see that his actions were indeed criminal. > > Using your logic, we should stop trying to prosecute scammers, too. I > mean, if someone is too stupid to figure out that the email did not > really come from a deposed Nigerian Prince, maybe they deserve to lose > all their money. > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> This wasn't rape and if it hadn't been an attempt to demonstrate FOIA >> evasion I might think otherwise. >> >> On that note, given that you continue to wrongly attribute ridiculous >> statements to me, I am bowing out of the conversation. It's a shame >> that Google can't distinguish between what you say and what other >> people say that you are saying. >> >> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 7:03 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Actually, I guess it would be the same as taking mail out of the >>> mailbox and reading it. A very big no-no. >>> >>> Its obvious that some think that the rights of privacy for illegal >>> immigrants do not extend to Palin or any one who does not know how to >>> properly secure their email accounts. >>> >>> What Dana is saying is tantamount to saying that a woman who is raped >>> has some 'contributory negligence' if she dresses provocatively. >>> (And, yes, I took it to the nth degree. Sadly, sometimes that is the >>> only way to show how ridiculous things are) >>> >>> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 6:53 AM, Medic <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> I don't really think comparing it to breaking into a house is a very good >>>> analogy. I think it's probably more accurate to equate it to taking mail >>>> out >>>> of someone's mail box. I believe this is a felony. And if someone did it >>>> you >>>> would blame the victim by saying "well the mailbox wasn't even locked." >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Scott Stroz >>> --------------- >>> You can make things happen, you can watch things happen or you can >>> wonder what the f*&k happened. - Cpt. Phil Harris >>> >>> http://xkcd.com/386/ >>> >>> >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:317172 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
