On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 13:29:47 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, Unknown Hacker
<unknownhacker@phreaker.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 14:42:58 -0700, Stoink wrote:
> I"LL TOP POST TOO!!
>
[snip]

Why? Perhaps you subscribe to the theory that two wrongs make a right?

> BULL****!!!
>
[snip]

How, exactly, does the information reported by "Stoink" qualify for that
appellation? Perhaps you not believe that he got the message from InterMute
that he quoted? On what basis would you disbelieve him?

Or do you think that the program's behavior, as described by its
author/publisher, does not satisfy his characterization of it as "spyware?
If so, you'd better think twice about *exactly* what InterMute said -- and
more importantly, what they did NOT say.

So what, exactly, is your objection?

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -