Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 28, 2011, at 12:16, Brian Johnson <bjohn...@drtel.com> wrote: > Owen, > > When you stretch an analogy this thin, it always falls apart. I was referring > to the poison/pollution not the water/air. A drought/vacuum* would not be > possible, but would you want the poisoned water/air? > I can tolerate a lot of spam if my legitimate messages get through. I have zero tolerance for blocking my legitimate traffic in the name of stopping pollution. I oppose the death penalty on the same basis. Owen > This analogy is bad enough without the nits picked out. I actually mixed two > posts to create a stream analogy out of an air analogy. > > I will not go any further and all further follows on to this analogy should > be ignored. :) > > - Brian J. > > * a lack of air (for a reasonable deffinition of air) would be a vacuum... > right? > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com] >> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 12:11 PM >> To: Brian Johnson >> Subject: Re: Outgoing SMTP Servers >> >>> >>>>> Nor is the data transiting these networks a commons. The air over my >>>>> land is a commons. I don't control it. If I pollute it or if I don't, >>>>> it promptly travels over someone else's land. >>>> >>>> If you choose to pollute the air heavily, the value of the air drops for >>>> everybody. >>>> If you choose to pollute the Net heavily, the value of the Net drops for >>>> everybody. >>>> >>> >>> STRIKE 3! Oops got ahead of myself. >>> >>> I'm attempting to prevent the pollution but I may capture a little good >>> water >> (almost nothing) along the way. To say that this is a way of "bad acting" and >> causes a loss of value to the Internet as a whole is pure folly. >>> >> >> No, it really isn't. Because the good water that you are catching is actually >> causing >> a drought downstream. >> >> Owen >