Subject:
|
Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Feb 1999 02:45:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1643 times
|
| |
|
|
Well, my point is he still didn't make a mistake. As I said, I followed
it, as I knew what was up. If you DIDN'T know about baseplate, and here's
my point...
***Why should the reader spend their time to visit a link to verify it is
NOT spam?***
That's my only point. You could possibly be validating some slimeball
spammers click-through type page, with who knows what JS code on it, or
banners, etc, etc, that earn him/her money.
I believe Keith (because he obviously did not know of baseplate) DID do the
proper thing here, and did not visit the link.
And come on, people, having legopolis in the URL doesn't mean SQUAT in the
real world (it DOES, however, carry much more weight on LUGnet), as people
sometimes specifically use "incorrect" words in URLs to peak curiosity.
Yeah, I have a hate for spam.
However, I loooove SPAM(tm), especially with ketchup.
> Of course not, but that's irrelevant. The point is that no one should be
> harping on Kevin. It was an easy mistake to make, and I'm sure he was only
> trying to point out what he believed to be a mistake that someone else made.
>
> True, ideally he should have followed the link to see what it was -- instead of
> posting the message he posted -- but he didn't. What's done is done. The best
> we can do at this point is to make sure that Kevin understands what he did
> wrong (to help him avoid making a similar mistake again in the future) and then
> forgive him and move on.
>
> Anyone who can't forgive Kevin for his mistake is invited either to leave or to
> prove that Kevin's message was intentionally hurtful rather than an honest
> (albeit careless) mistake.
>
> --Todd
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service
|
| (...) Because he's taking the time to flame the original poster? I mean, sure, you don't need to visit a spam-like link, but you also don't have to flame - in a public forum, no less - the original poster. Much better either to email or to check it, (...) (26 years ago, 18-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service
|
| (...) Ah, but conversely, why should he _post_ a response to something he thinks is spam? Totally pointless, and just increases the disruption caused by a spam. Anyway, people should think before they post. They sometimes seem to forget that they're (...) (26 years ago, 19-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Virtual Flower Delivery Service
|
| (...) Why am I being misunderstood so much today? I must not be taking enough time to write clearly. :-( I was not condemning it as spam. I was explaining to Mike why it appeared like spam to one person (and probably to a few others who haven't (...) (26 years ago, 18-Feb-99, to lugnet.general)
|
42 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
|
|
|
|
