On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 19:14:32 +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > Can we please stick to debating facts instead of fautuous analogies > based on transmogrifying animals? > What I am seeing here is a weird set of justifications of inaction > based on improbable corner cases. > Actual cases related to abuse enforcement (anonymized would be fine) > are going to be far better than cows or donkeys. >
I did post an actual real world example of Hetzner.de (non anonymized) You did not comment on that (in fact nobody did) During the very long "Definition of abuse" thread - it became patently clear that; 1. many people on this list has no idea what constitutes Internet abuse (even if they did see it) 2. many people really need transmogrifying animal examples - as they struggle to understand the basic concepts. - Which I do not think is the case so much any longer. > On 04/10/16, 7:08 PM, "anti-abuse-wg on behalf of ox" > <anti-abuse-wg-boun...@ripe.net on behalf of an...@ox.co.za> wrote: > > On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 16:12:10 +0300 > Sergey <gfo...@fotontel.ru> wrote: > > Andre, that your cow is a donkey is purely your problem, not of > > the others subscribed to the mailing list. > > Please tell us all why you are saying that? > > Are you a cyber criminal and it is in your best interests to not > have a definition of abuse? > > or why? > > what is your agenda? > > > > > On 10/04/16 15:49, ox wrote: > > > my cow is a donkey > > > > > > > >
