Yeah, the kook content is higher than I'd like. Its amazing that, in
2007, 2 years after a major case like Councilman, that kooks keep saying
that these laws don't apply. Its amazing: even after high profile court
cases that show these laws do apply, just as I said they would apply in
1998. Of course, you meant to call me the kook, as though that might
discredit me somehow. But it has turned out that I was right, spot-on
right.
So who is the kook? Well, kooks aren't vindicated. Kooks are wrong in
kooky, irrationally wrong ways. That's why people call them 'kooks'.
The kooks don't have a rational argument to begin with. Indeed, its the
irrationally of the kooks' assertions that makes them kooks.
We've seen just that irrationality with the people who claimed that
these laws didn't apply to ISPs. The people who made such claims were
kooky or maybe just dishonest.
Often, I've found that some people (usually the dishonest and unethical
people) only object to the content that shows illegal and unethical
technical activity to be illegal and unethical. They never object to the
any illegal and unethical behavior. A person once asked me why I point
out legal issues on technical lists. My response is: why do they want to
promote illegal and unethical technical activity.
Technical knowledge without ethics is a very pernicious thing.
--Dean
On Mon, 21 May 2007, Todd Underwood wrote:
> wow. the kook content is higher here than i'd like. i suspect others
> agree.can we please drop the pseudo-legal nonsense from the list.
> it's off-topic and i suspect dean knows it.
>
> don't feed the trolls.
>
> thanks,
>
> t.
>
>
>
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
|