[LINK] unlawful interception of internet traffic?

[Adam Todd]

At 08:06 AM 8/12/2006, Craig Sanders wrote:
>as usual, todd is complete moron and has no idea what he's talking about.

Of course not, I only spend three days a week in the Supreme and Federal 
Courts.  I know nothing about anything.

>he should know by now that i have no interest whatsoever in anything he says.

Sounds like my father.  Has no interest in what I have to say or do, but 
records everything, responds to everything and misrepresents me to everyone.

You sure you're not my father?

>he should just killfile me.

Then I'd not be able to correct your ignorance and stupidity for the other 
reads who are likley to be so misguided by your arrogance.

[I don't usually take the personal attack approach but I'm working on a 
film right now about Human Trafficking for Sex and my tolerance is perhaps 
a little less than usual and you really have to be personal in such a story.]

>or ignore me.

I always ignore Craig.  Just as I ignore twits and idiots.  But that 
doesn't mean one should not enlighten and warn the rest of the population 
that the rants are way off base and very inappropriate.

>i don't care as long as he doesn't presume to reply to me.

I manually remove Craigs address from any CC or REPLY-TO list when I reply 
to any message.  I'd rather Craig didn't waste my time with the need to 
read a reply.  Just like this.  But again, I feel it is my civic duty to 
ensure experienced opinion is provided, over Craigs personal allegations 
and attacks on people who can't provide a reply.

[I guess in this case we could just traceroute to Craigs IP's find his 
uplink provider, email them with copies of his messages and ask them for a 
reply. ]

>his ignorant, ill-informed opinions are
>not in the least bit useful or interesting.

You really sound like my father.  I told him he'd never win suing me for 
ten years rent arrears.  He did it three times and lost three times.  You 
sure you're not my father?

>Todd is a shining example of the maxim "Don't worry about what people
>think, they don't do it very often"

<rofl>

And that's why you have to reply to personally attack my character, rather 
than comment on the contents of my opinion.  Because you haven't got 
anything by way of intelligence to offer to counter argue the comments I 
make, so play the man rather than the ball.

And that's why debaters like you, Craig, fail and loose respect from the 
intelligent of the community.