On Sun, 16 Jan 2005, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Once upon a time, Christopher L. Morrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > That process/procedure is in place for a good reason, > > circumventing it will lead to problems in the long run. Do you circumvent > > for MS, for AOL, for ATT? At what point do you draw the line? My home > > business of pot painting? > > If the proper procedure was circumvented in the first place (which > appears to be the case with panix.com), then it should be circumvented > to repair the damage as fast as possible. If it can be proven to have been cicumvented, sure. I don't think anything beyond conjecture about that has been said 'publicly' yet, has it?
