> 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.
It made posting fraudulent numbers in the header an act of wire fraud, which it should have obviously been prior to that.
> >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?
Could you please stop LYING????
I never admitted that. I have specifically said that email can be anonymous AND verified as coming from the source specified, just a anonymous digicash is.
Letting spam run amok is far more likely to trigger a police state type reaction than the use of and enforcement of existing laws on these acts. We don't need new laws, the ones we have are fine, they need to be enforced!
<ATTACK type="ad hominem" name="moral relativity"> The ease with which you seem to accept your fate of being a 'victim' of spam might be because you lack the moral integrity or willingness to maintain your own level of honesty which would meet the standard that needs to be demanded of spammers. Please stop lying about what other people say. </ATTACK>