On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 19:14:32 +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@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-bounces@ripe.net on behalf of andre@ox.co.za> wrote:

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 16:12:10 +0300 Sergey <gforgx@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 >