James D. Wilson [firstname.lastname@example.org] wrote:
>Ad hominem again. I have given you logic. I have answered your one
>question above and replied to your many statements as well.
No, you continue to deny things which are blatantly true. You continue to claim that the 'junk fax' law didn't end anonymity of faxes when it required everyone to put a telephone number on their fax. Black is white. Freedom is slavery. Identification is anonymity.
>An anti-spam law does not result in a police state on the net any more
>than the junk fax law resulted in a police state on the telephone
It will end anonymity (as both you and Mike have admitted), end secure encryption, and give the governments yet another excuse to censor the Net. What more could a police state want?
Sit back from your anti-spam crusade for a moment and think about the consequences of your actions.