Subject:
|
Re: Sale announcements (Was Beware more SPAM...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 25 Sep 2000 21:09:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1072 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> What are the defining attributes of spam? If there is some universally agreed
> upon definition, feel free to just point me to that.
Sorry, my bad. How about Unsolicited Commercial E-mail?
> Jeremy seems to me like a raving nutcake in this note. Am I alone in thinking
> this, or are you all raving nutcakes?
"Raving nutcake". That's probably close -- I did become a bit unhinged when
he intruded his business into my affairs. But I'd draw the line
after "raving" but before "nutcake", and am amused that this argument has
degenerated into childish name-calling.
> In lugnet.general, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> > *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?
Where'd you get the amount of a few cents? I feel that control over my in-box
is more valuable than that. How about *I* set the price for sending me spam?
Better yet, I might auction it. Bidding starts at $100 per message.
> > 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.
Yup, he did. See the message I linked to in my first post.
> > 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.
Heh. See my second paragraph, re: "Raving Nutcake". This advice coming from
you was weakened by that. However, you're right. I should have given my post
more thought, and turned down the heat a bit. But the message would've still
gone out.
> > Yours is the exact same tactic
> > used by thousands of spammers.
> Except that he thought that he knew you and knew your interests. Oops.
He *thought* he knew, but didn't take the time to ask before hitting me with
his ad. 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?
Are you genuninely preplexed, or are you simply taking the devil's advocate
stance?
I dunno, really, where it comes from. Personally, I don't watch much TV.
Perhaps you are missing some bit of popular culture?
> > 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.
This one cracks me up. What if I were existential, and questioned my
involvement as a customer? What if I were a butterfly dreaming I was an
irresponsible capitalist dreaming I was a sponge cake? What if I asked, what
level do you really want to take this to?
Fact: I *was* a customer. Past tense. History. Our business relationship
ended when he received my payment and I received his goods. It does not go
past that.
And it likely never will, since I now have a better understanding of his
attitude towards his priors.
> > 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.
Uffa, hello? By sending me the ad with the assumption that I'd be happy to
receive it, he DID claim such.
> Can you break down how much his incomming ad cost you?
Sure. The cost is up to the highest bidder (see above). File it
under "emotional distress". Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
What you're not getting is that there is a principle at stake here. What
Andreas did, whether he intended to or not, was theft. Should I turn a blind
eye, be accepting petty crimes when they're indicative of a larger problem?
Some might say yes, but I say no. Hell no. Far better that he understands
the frustration and anger he causes.
Cheers,
- jsproat
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Sale announcements (Was Beware more SPAM...)
|
| (...) agreed (...) Actually, I was serious. I wasn't challenging your use, just asking. (...) thinking (...) Sorry. I was trying to be funny and serious at the same time. It's a tightwire act and maybe I just fell to my death. (...) Well, I did a (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
