Re: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Contacts
- Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 19:36:10 +0700
- Priority: Normal
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 11:54:52 +0100 (MET), Paul Wouters wrote:
>Don't get me wrong, what you wish (or rather demand) is something that
we're
>all in favour of. Except that in a time with the economy in our sector is
>very bad, neither the LIR's, nor the RIR's, have the extra money to spare
>on this.
Dear Paul,
This is precisely the argument that all the big-time Environmental
Polluters always used: "Yes, it's true our factory is dumping sewage
in the stream, but we're in favor of a clean environment; we just
have no funds now" which translated means "let someone else
pay for the consequences of my negligence or intentional torts".
With respect, no responsible person can any longer advance the
objection you propose. It was totally discredited by the firms
dumping their sewage in the nearest stream and expecting the
natives to pay for their own cleanup. The abusers and their
enablers have to pay the cost of the damage they cause. It is
impermissible to blame the victims and expect them to pay the cost
created by someone else's damage. Nowhere else in society is
such a principle used. How can you advance using it on the
Internet?
Jeffrey Race
