From: "Ross Wright" <rwright@adnetsol.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 14:47:45 +0800
To: cypherpunks mailing list <cypherpunks@algebra.com>
Subject: Re: Spam IS Free Speech
Message-ID: <199705150640.XAA07531@adnetsol.adnetsol.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On or About 14 May 97 at 3:46, lucifer Anonymous Remailer wrote:

> Ross Wright wrote:
> > 
> > You can not retaliate against free
> > speech, Rick.  That's a bad thing, plain and simple, black and
> > white.
> 
>   Crock of shit, Ross.

No shit, you just can't send 10,000 megs of info in retaliation for a 
few bits.  Really, there's no call for that.  It's wrong. 

>   It costs me money to download unwanted spam. What's this "free"
> bullshit?

What?  Like 80 cents per gig?  Please a bit here and a byte there 
isn't going to break anyone.  Could someone do the math?

> > Free speech is a right.  You have the right to make some snotty
> > reply, but no right to intentionally harm. 
> 
>   Spammers neither know nor care if they are causing harm to the
> finances or mental well-being of others.

One message in your in box is no excuse for terror tactics.  Mail 
bombs, arp atacks, calls for regulations: aren't you over reacting?  
Just a little?  I think your mental well being is in question anyway.

>   If a spammer declares their right to cause me financial loss and
> denial of service for the time it takes me to rid myself of their
> unwanted intrusion

What, like 5 seconds a week?  Less?  Please.  It just isn't as bad as 
you make it seem.

Shit I love this, the spammers love this.  There is no such thing as
*bad* publicity.  The more you screem the better it is for the "bad
spammers".

> then they can have no expectation that I, in
> turn, will not declare what level of financial loss and denial of
> service I will cause them.

You have no right to deny them more than the few seconds of service 
that you lost.  Any more than that is terror tactics, and a waste of 
time.  You should be working on better projects than "Let's fuck over 
the spammers".  Wow, that's productive.  Shit, man write some useful 
code.
 
> > You, nor anyone else, has a right to lash out at
> > someone for something they say or some ad they send you.
> 
>   So spammers have no right to lash out at my sending them a
> gigabyte of email regarding the evils of spamming. 

A gig for a few bytes.  Why?  That's so lame.  Such a watse of 
talented code writing.  And why are you escalating this?
 
> > > It makes
> > > *me* feel better.
> > 
> > Ahhh, at last the point.  Are you a self centred ass, who's
> > personal feelings are more important that the Constitution? 
> 
>   Ross has failed to explain just how the Constitution promotes the
> spammer's right to intrude upon the spammer's life and cause them
> financial loss while denying that right to the spammee.

Well I've tried to describe that you lose about a dime per year.

>   Ross' personal feelings seem to be important enough to him to cast
> slurs on those who disagree with his black-and-white opinions
> regarding his right to spam others without them having a
> corresponding right to reply in kind.

You can feel free to send me twice as many bytes as I send to you, 
OK?  Feel beter?  No!  You must fuck me over because I sent you my 
latest MLM scam.  Yeah that's so mature!  Come out from behind your 
remailer and state your opinions, wrong as they are.

 >   Gander. Goose.

Right.  If I send you a gig, you send me a gig.  If I send you a meg 
you send me a meg.  A few bytes for a few bytes.  Are you following 
what has upset me about this issue, yet?  Like for Like, Goose, 
Gander.  You said it, but you don't mean it. 

Right?  You are saying if I send you one message, you have the right 
to mail bomb me?  There's no parity there.  

It's very distressing how much of a hot button this issue is.

 >TruthMonger

 Lier. 

Ross

=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ross Wright
King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services
http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia
Voice: (408) 259-2795