Re: no poison for Joplin

[Gadi Evron <ge () linuxbox org>]

On 5/31/11 7:18 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2011 18:10:40 +0300, Gadi Evron said:
> > I can see your point if we discuss it philosophically, however, these
> > things have clinical definitions. A spammer may be a regular human being
> > such as you or I, with very similar psychology.
>
> Highly unlikely.  Doing things (like spamming) just because you want to even
> when society disapproves is pretty much the *definition* of sociopath. Sure,
> there may be spammers who really hate themselves and are only doing it because
> they have to pay for their child's kidney transplant, but I think it's safe to
> exclude both of them from the analysis. The rest of them are sociopaths
> who like the money and don't care what society thinks.

Sorry Valdis, but while it may be a reasonable definition, a Sociopath 
is a complex term which could mean some extreme personality disorders 
(hate that terms) or even Psychopathy. This does not compare.

So, "likelihood" has nothing to do with it.

        Gadi.

>


-- 
Gadi Evron,
ge () linuxbox org.

Blog: http://gevron.livejournal.com/
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.