And since, on the internet, there is _no_ communication without use of
the
private property of the other party to the communication, it means you
don't
need advance consent to use somebody else's property to communicate
with
them. We have declared many times we don't have a right to be annoyed,
only
a right not be harassed.
That's a non sequitur. You might just as easily turn it around: Because
you
don't have a right to
use someones private property without their consent, you don't have a
right
to communicate with them.
I don't think so, a non sequitur would have to involve some element that
was
unrelated to the premise, in this case the technical framework of the
network
is (at its base) such a construction as was presented. So no I do not
agree
that is a non sequitur.
Non sequitur
n.
An inference which does not *follow* from the premises.
(not "unrelated")
It's possible (as demonstrated) to infer the contrary
from the same premises.
--
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg