Actually I was not commenting on your original thread of discussion I was
commenting on your analysis of the 'locks' example. IMHO that analysis,
specifically, was erroneous. I do recognize the motivation and accuracy of
your original statement. I think this is merely an issue my commentary being
out-of-band to that original thread. Sorry.
-e
On Wednesday, February 04, 2004 10:02 AM, Paul Tenny
[SMTP:pwtenny(_at_)earthlink(_dot_)net] wrote:
Eric D. Williams wrote:
I hope this clarifies, what I think was the example.
You missed the point of it by about 500 miles.
Intent? Law? Violation? Did you even read what I said originally?
I wrote;
It becomes exceptionally difficult when you rely on the law as part
of the solution to a problem.
I think our legal system has shown over and over it doesn't matter
how much you punish or threaten someone, the only way to stop them
is to put up a better defense against *them*, not their methods.
I can't think of a reason someone would take something so wildly out
of context for any reason unless they simply missed the point, so
there it is.
It doesn't have anything to do with what you think, or what he thinks,
or what I think. Trying to punish people after they've done something
wrong is not a solution, it's a fix. We don't need fixes, we need
solutions.
The answer's out there, trust me.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg