Re: no poison for Joplin

[Ned Fleming <ned () kaw us>]

On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 12:36:10 -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 18:54:15 +0300, Gadi Evron said:
> > That is simply factually untrue, and while your deserved respect for how 
> > long you've been dealing with spammers is something you have, it does 
> > not reflect as an expertise on criminal psychology.
> >
> > Saying all spammers, especially today with the huge criminal 
> > enterprises, as psychopaths simply is impossible. There just aren't that 
> > many of psychopaths around.
>
> Which part of "psychopaths come in varying degrees, and there's enough of the
> mild ones to fill every prison in the US" did you fail to understand?

Most people use the words psychopath/sociopath as vernacularisms.

I think Gadi is looking to more of a legal or clinical definition.

If spamming is a mental illness, don't the spammers deserve our
sympathy -- and our support with AA-like programs? It's not evil; it's
a disease.

I could see Rich K starting a home for destitute (but reformed!)
spammers. Well . . . maybe not.

-- 

Ned


_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.