Sorry, I don't agree. Nothing you listed is an "illegal" practice. Not agreeing with their practices and extortion are very different. (btw - I don't use them either.) C
>>> On 2/28/2006 at 4:19:34 pm, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mouss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Clay Davis a écrit : >> Maybe #3, in a strictly dictionary since of the word, but I doubt it. Never > #2; SORBS holds no "official" position or power. When you make an accusation > of extortion, you better be using the "legal" definition. I'm no lawyer, but > I am pretty sure the legal definition involves some force coupled with an > illegal act. I don't see what SORBS is doing as either. When I go to court, > I'm taking the statute... not the Webster's! ;-) >> >> What one would argue as "taking advantage"; SORBS would argue as a legal, > economical service. > > # 2 is still a possible interpretation: > > 1- sorbs list people > sorbs has no official role to do so. "self designed > police" is not an official role. > 2- sorbs indirectly recommend their lists > the common "but I ask nobody to use my list" is as silly as > "but I ask nobody to use my weapons" or "but I ask nobody to > consume my drugs. They are for sale, not for consumption". > 3- sorbs do nothing (or not much) to warn against using their list > > 4- sorbs _require_ money to get delisted (for some lists only) > > 5- Money must be donated to a "SORBS nominated charity or good cause" > This is unclear. What are the conditions for nomination? Can they > provide examples of "good causes" so we see? What if they nominate > organisations that are considered terrorist or criminal in my country? > > 6- They can list innocents. (they listed the postfix ML twice last year) > > > Depending on your country, this may or may not be a sufficient to sue > sorbs. so this is just theoritical. but unless I get 2/3 lawyers saying > that it's ok, I will keep far away... after all, there are safer lists: > sbl, xbl, opm, cbl, njabl, ahbl, ordb, dsbl, bogons
