nanog mailing list archives
Re: EFF whitepaper
From: "Paul G" <paul () rusko us>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:03:49 -0500
----- Original Message ----- From: "Rich Kulawiec" <rsk () gsp org> To: <nanog () merit edu> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 8:10 AM Subject: Re: EFF whitepaper --- snip ---
Collateral damage is unacceptable, period.Oh, I most certainly agree -- but then again, since nobody is being "damaged" in any way (something the EFF clearly doesn't understand), this is not a problem. Note: all instance of "you" which follow are rhetorical and not intended to apply to any individual. If you call me, and I do not accept your call, have I "damaged" you? No. I have merely declined to extend you a privilege. If you send me a letter, and I choose not to accept delivery, have I "damaged" you? No. I have merely declined to extend you a privilege.
if i were being sent a letter or a call and my post office/telephone company decided to reject them because they were overworked and needed to filter to reduce costs, i'd have a lot to say about that, as i'm sure would you. with that said, this is quite possibly off-topic to nanog. i'd second the request earlier in the thread to move it to somewhere more appropriate. paul --- paul galynin
Current thread:
- Re: EFF whitepaper, (continued)
- Re: EFF whitepaper Paul Vixie (Nov 14)
- Re: EFF whitepaper Steven Champeon (Nov 15)
- Re: EFF whitepaper J.D. Falk (Nov 15)
- Re: EFF whitepaper Tom (UnitedLayer) (Nov 15)
- Re: EFF whitepaper Steven Champeon (Nov 15)
- Re: EFF whitepaper Tom (UnitedLayer) (Nov 15)
- Re: EFF whitepaper Patrick W Gilmore (Nov 15)
- Re: EFF whitepaper Steven Champeon (Nov 15)
- Staying on topic (was Re: EFF whitepaper) Steve Gibbard (Nov 15)
- Re: EFF whitepaper Rich Kulawiec (Nov 16)
- Re: EFF whitepaper Paul G (Nov 16)
- Re: EFF whitepaper Suresh Ramasubramanian (Nov 16)
- Re: EFF whitepaper Steven Champeon (Nov 15)
- Re: EFF whitepaper Paul Vixie (Nov 14)
- Re: EFF whitepaper Richard Welty (Nov 15)
- Re: EFF whitepaper J.D. Falk (Nov 17)