[LINK] Fw: Proposal for International Law Enforcement

[Craig Sanders]

On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 07:11:28PM -0800, David Goldstein wrote:
> Woohoo... mission accomplished... back on Craig's censored list....
> and thanks Craig for noting your approval of CENSORSHIP!

1. it's not a censorship list. it's my own personal filter to
auto-return crap that i don't want from people i don't want to hear
from.

like many other dull-witted people you think that there is an amazing
contradiction and damning hypocrisy to be exposed in the fact that i am
anti-censorship and also take personal action to avoid seeing stuff that
i don't want to see, including spam and other annoyances such as your
self.

you are wrong. as usual. 

censorship has nothing to do with me choosing what i want to see,
censorship is when someone else imposes THEIR view of what i
should/shouldn't see on me or on others.


2. you were never OFF my filter, so you didn't get back on it. no
mission, no accomplishment. a shame for you, i suppose, it would have
been your first.




3. i'll explain how it works once again in very simple terms. so simple
that even you might be able to understand them.

my filter ONLY sends back your junk to you if you send it To: or CC: to
me. when it does that, it sends your garbage back to all of your known
addresses. this latter is due to losers like todd thinking they can get
around my filter by sending their crap from different addresses. doesn't
help. just ensures they get their own crap returned to them multiple
times. nicely automated so i don't even need to know about it. unless
they embarass themselves by whinging about it on a public list.

it does not respond if you simply reply on a public mailing list without
CC-ing me. there are several reasons for that. i really couldn't be
bothered going in to them right now. suffice it to say that i chose to
write my filter like that.


to summarise: do not send mail direct to me. i.e. do not send mail with
To or CC headers that mention my personal address.


and to answer your stupid straw man question:

> ----- Forwarded Message ----
>
> So Craig, if I am abroad and use your copyright (if you have any)
> and take away all your customers/clients (should you have any), you
> would be happy as long as I am abiding by the laws of the country I am
> in? After all, what I would be doing would be legal there.

it makes no difference whether i am "happy" or not. what is significant
is the fact that i should not be able to use my own country's laws (or
the laws of some country-of-convenience) against someone for doing
something in another country. if i have a problem with what they do in
a foreign country, then i should use the law in that country to seek
redress. and if that country's laws say that they have done nothing
wrong then i am SOL.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>

"Every minister likes to consider himself as a brave shepherd leading
 the lambs through green pastures and defending them at night from
 Infidel wolves. All this he does for a certain share of the wool."
                   [Robert G. Ingersoll]