On 5/31/11 7:18 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2011 18:10:40 +0300, Gadi Evron said:
>> I can see your point if we discuss it philosophically, however, these
>> things have clinical definitions. A spammer may be a regular human being
>> such as you or I, with very similar psychology.
>
> Highly unlikely. Doing things (like spamming) just because you want to even
> when society disapproves is pretty much the *definition* of sociopath. Sure,
> there may be spammers who really hate themselves and are only doing it because
> they have to pay for their child's kidney transplant, but I think it's safe to
> exclude both of them from the analysis. The rest of them are sociopaths
> who like the money and don't care what society thinks.
Sorry Valdis, but while it may be a reasonable definition, a Sociopath
is a complex term which could mean some extreme personality disorders
(hate that terms) or even Psychopathy. This does not compare.
So, "likelihood" has nothing to do with it.
Gadi.
>
>
--
Gadi Evron,
[email protected].
Blog: http://gevron.livejournal.com/
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
