On 6/1/11 9:33 PM, Ned Fleming wrote:
> I think Gadi is looking to more of a legal or clinical definition.
More of a plea to be careful when making use of such terminology, which
is not day-to-day as some may think. We as professionals need to be
careful in our language.
> If spamming is a mental illness, don't the spammers deserve our
> sympathy -- and our support with AA-like programs? It's not evil; it's
> a disease.
>
> I could see Rich K starting a home for destitute (but reformed!)
> spammers. Well . . . maybe not.
Hahahahahahaha
I would have spilled my coffee if I was drinking any. That is a grand
specimen of "turning the tables" on an argument I have seen in a while,
even if it is a logical fallacy which does not really invalidate Rich's
position (IMO).
Well played. Respects, Sir.
Gadi.
_______________________________________________
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.
