| |
In lugnet.general, Jason Rowoldt writes:
> > You missed Jeremy's point. (Yes, he was being extreme - but no more so than
> > any number of people that post regularly, and far less than some)
> >
> > UCE is wrong & bad, and all that stuff. People are welcome to make an honest
> > living - they aren't welcome to do so with my dime or my time unless they ask
> > first. Period.
> >
> > Maybe you don't care about being used that way, but some of us do. Jeremy's
> > just more vocal than some - that doesn't make him wrong.
>
> Thus you have the means to prevent them and block addresses. MY point was
> that with the tiniest, tiniest bit of effort, the inconvenience is gone.
Fixing symptoms does not fix problems.
> It would have taken him far less time to block the address than rant on
> LUGNET. I can already see your next argument, that it shouldn't have come to
> his inbox in the first place. I think that by doing business with this
> seller before, he should expect a tiny bit of return business. If the seller
> was sending weekly, or even monthly emails, that is a different story. But
> it was a one time thing, correct?
>
> If he was really bothered by it, just block/ignore the address sending it.
> You want an example of annoying solicitations? Try selling something on
> Ebay. I got at least 50 emails telling me to "Accept credit cards as payment
> methods!".
>
> My beef is that it annoys me to see someone spend so much time and effort
> whining and bemoaning the tiny problem and trying to give the seller a bad
> reputation rather than taking the small amount of effort to correct it (i.e.,
> block the address or reply asking him to stop solicitations). As a
> counter-point to my own arguement, I could be building instead of writing
> this.
Yup, you're right. It's much easier to just ignore/delete/block spam than it
is to try and do something to correct it. So? If my neighbor's fence breaks,
putting the cow back in his yard won't help, although its sure easier than
fixing the fence.
And maybe a private response would have been "better" - but as Jeremy pointed
out, this isn't the first time Andreas has sent out unwelcome e-mail. I've
done business with Andreas - the first time he sent me spam, I'd either ignore
it, or respond privately & politely - if he did it again, I would have reacted
like Jeremy did. If that makes me a "spaz" too, then I guess I'll just have
to deal.
James
<F-ut off-topic.debate, should have done that the first time, my Bad.>
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Thanks but no thanks
|
| (...) Just nitpicking here, not sure of the overall relevance, but... Bad analogy. (having tried and failed to move cows and having actually fixed fences). It's a LOT easier to fix a fence that doesn't want to be fixed than to move a cow that (...) (24 years ago, 27-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Thanks but no thanks
|
| (...) Thus you have the means to prevent them and block addresses. MY point was that with the tiniest, tiniest bit of effort, the inconvenience is gone. It would have taken him far less time to block the address than rant on LUGNET. I can already (...) (24 years ago, 27-Sep-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.market.auction)
|
86 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
