Subject:
|
Re: Junk mail (was: Apology.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 24 Nov 2001 18:12:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
641 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > >
> > > You may resubscribe if you wish and I won't unsubscribe you again... until
> > > and unless you call it junk email again.
> >
> > Well, many people I know still complain about junk snail mail, but can't be
> > bothered putting a "no junk mail" sign on their letter box. They just throw >the
> > junk straight in the recycle bin. Maybe they think one day they'll get
> > something useful? Dunno. Seems a total waste to me. But they choose to do it.
>
> Your analogy is false.
>
> > I think Scott calling it junk mail is not enough to justify unsubscribing him,
> > and never will be. Yes I *know* you've apologised, but the above statement
> > indicates you'd do it again. That'd be wrong, IMO.
>
> You should share your perspective, then, in admin.terms, where this issue
> has been raised. I'm prepared to be ToSsed over it, as I've admitted that my
> anger at Scott when he lies about receiving junk email is so great that I'd
> likely unsubscribe him again.
Sigh. Where have I lied now?
Scott A
> If he actively subscribes to it, it's not
> junk, is it?
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Junk mail (was: Apology.)
|
| (...) Your analogy is false. (...) You should share your perspective, then, in admin.terms, where this issue has been raised. I'm prepared to be ToSsed over it, as I've admitted that my anger at Scott when he lies about receiving junk email is so (...) (23 years ago, 23-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
31 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
