Re: SpamAssassin and OHA (was: [ox-en] SpamAssassin (was: OHA/ODA in English))
- From: Casimir Purzelbaum <quasi utopix.net>
- Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:12:46 +0100
* Ref.: »SpamAssassin and OHA (was: [ox-en] SpamAssassin (was: OHA/ODA in English))«
* Stefan Merten (2003-12-13 01:29)
Hi Stefan,
As you noticed, I missed a lot ;-)
Since you were saying you were interested in general
considerations, I think to myself "better later than never":
Actually since discussing this topic virtually nobody denied, that
there "must be rules".
In "general", I do very much deny this. (Not in our current and a
lot of other situations, though.) Why should there *always* have
to be rules?! What is a rule? If you look at rules as in
mathematics or physics... I would agree with you. If you look at
them as "formalized enforcable guidelines concerning the behaviour of
the individuals", then I disagree (talking most generally).
...
* Everybody inside or outside this community has to respect these
rules or otherwise may be subject to some negative consequences
In a way this is some sort of self-defense. Also I'd say everyone
who does not comply to the rules of the community s/he's interacting
with is alienated from this community. Again I think alienation is
the key aspect here.
I think -- even more than you do -- that alienation is the key
aspect here: Who would need a rule if everybody would know to
behave himself as to not alienate himself from the community of
the people he lives in? (and if the community would take care of
not alienating itself from itself...)
If there was a "mechanism" ensuring non-alienation you would not
need any rules, but you could observe rules (just as in you can
observe rules in sciences).
regards,
Casi.
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/