Subject:
|
Re: Sale announcements (Was Beware more SPAM...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.auction
|
Date:
|
Tue, 26 Sep 2000 10:30:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1365 times
|
| |
|
|
Hi Chris,
I started reading this thread from the beginning and quickly came to the conclusion
that someone should say something to make these "lego spam haters" settle down.
They are a noisy minority and I've found to my detriment that ignoring them doesn't
work.
I wholeheartedly agree with every point you make and am surprised that these
whingers have decide to pick on Andreas who has been a good member of the lego
community for many years.
My 1.4 cents worth.
Mark H.
Christopher Weeks wrote:
> What are the defining attributes of spam? If there is some universally agreed
> upon definition, feel free to just point me to that.
>
> Why is it that there is a positive correlation between the degree of net
> savvyness and spite toward spam? I've been on the net for a decade (and a
> month), and I've watch attitudes toward spam develop over that time. And it
> seems quite fashionable among the netterati to compete to see who hates spam
> the most. Why spend so much of your emotion on such a trivial matter?
>
> Jeremy seems to me like a raving nutcake in this note. Am I alone in thinking
> this, or are you all raving nutcakes?
>
> Hey Andreas, I'm not on your list, but I'd like to be. What are you selling
> these days?
>
> In lugnet.general, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
>
> > This is effective, no? Rudeness for rudeness.
>
> Good thinking. Get out the Old Testament and go to town!
>
> > *I* pay for that in-box, and I say that you need *my* permission to make money
> > from it.
>
> What if I paypal you a few cents with a spam ad in the comments section?
>
> > Don't get defensive because you were bit on the tush for being
> > unethical and careless.
>
> I'm having a hard time swallowing unethical...but maybe if he's been smacked
> down for it before. Oh, and if he agrees with you.
>
> > And perhaps I did read this, and still disagreed with you. Why should I give
> > you the courtesy if you have given me none?
>
> Your mother should have covered this with you as a toddler. I guess you missed
> that lesson.
>
> > Yours is the exact same tactic
> > used by thousands of spammers.
>
> Except that he thought that he knew you and knew your interests. Oops.
>
> > Bad Thing
>
> I've seen these Good Thing and Bad Thing references sprout up all over in the
> last (what a year maybe? longer?) while and I'm guessing it's a TV thing since
> that's the only explanation that I can think of for what bit of such popular
> culture I'd be missing. Anyone care to briefly explain?
>
> > to do, as it only serves to verify that my e-mail address is live.
> > Sorry, but I am firm in this.
>
> Yeah, I'm sure that's what Andreas would do.
>
> > > and can simply say
> > > that my notice was only sent to people who have dealt with me before. Many
> > > people responded very favorably to my message, and to be frank it seems to be
> > > common AFOL business practice to notify existing customers of new deals.
> >
> > And this! I am not an "existing customer".
>
> You exist. You are (well, were, I suppose) a customer. You are an "existing
> customer." And as a courtesy (and obviously to get the word out) to you and
> others who might be interested, he was letting you know about his sale.
>
> > I buy from whom I like, you have
> > no claim on my business, and I make no promises of future business.
>
> Never did he claim such. That's a totally obtuse interpretation of his stance.
>
> > I find the insinuation that you own some portion of myself
>
> Such an insinuation would indeed be insulting. Lucky for you, he didn't
> insuate such, you just fabricated it from your delusional hatred.
>
> Can you break down how much his incomming ad cost you? He might very well be
> willing to reimburse you for your expense. I know that my ISP at home is about
> $1 per day, and I get about 50-75 notes each day. So I guess each one is maybe
> $.02. Adding the cost of my time into it I guess we could say the time is
> worth $100/hour and it takes me about half a second to look at the subject and
> hit delete. So that comes to <scribble, scribble> 1.4 cents. So are your
> numbers just way more than mine, or is the 3.4 cents that big a deal?
>
> Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
86 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
