Subject:
|
Re: Sale announcements (Was Beware more SPAM...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 25 Sep 2000 21:48:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1261 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> 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?
Actually, I was serious. I wasn't challenging your use, just asking.
> > 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.
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.
> > 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?
Well, I did a guesstimate math at the bottom of my note. I think that if you
have a reasonable claim to being the victim of theft, then it should be based
on the amount it cost you, not "emotional distress." What if you suffered the
same bizzarre emotional distress at paper junk mail? Do you suppose that you'd
have an easy time convincing anyone that you deserve $100+ for each ad you get
in your mailbox? The only difference is the cost of your email box above and
beyond the cost of your postal service mail box.
> I feel that control over my in-box is more valuable than that.
I see that.
> How about *I* set the price for sending me spam?
> Better yet, I might auction it. Bidding starts at $100 per message.
I believe that email protocals would be easy to construct such that a password
or a payment had to accompany the note or it would just vanish. And since it
seems like a cool idea, I assume that people have talked it out. Anyone know a
pointer to it?
> > > 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.
I don't think that just because I missed that lesson too, makes it any less
valid a point. And really, I didn't mean to exactly be insulting, just not
exactly nice either. Maybe I've been reading too much usenet lately.
> > > 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.
So, if he had sent you a note, asking if he could send you a note about his
upcoming LEGO sale, that would have cost you less? Come on.
> > > 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?
Uh...I'm not sure how I could have been taken as just playing devil's advocate.
I was seriously interested in where those phrases came from. I'm sure it's
just some pop icon that I don't know about because I don't watch TV. I do know
how they're used and stuff, I am merely interested in the origin.
> I dunno, really, where it comes from. Personally, I don't watch much TV.
> Perhaps you are missing some bit of popular culture?
Me too. And yes, I think I am. And it sounds like you are too. No biggie, I
was just throwing that in with the note.
> > > 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?
I'm afraid that I don't get it.
> 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 so if you buy a hot dog from the guy down town, and he recognizes you the
next day and asks if you want the same thing you had for lunch yesterday, do
you kick his teeth in? He thought you might want some more. He wasn't trying
to abuse you, or steal, or be mean.
> > > 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.
BS. He never assumed that he had some kind of right to make you buy stuff. He
sent you mail with an opportunity to buy. Just like Publisher's Clearinghouse
does.
> 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.
Since he isn't the recipient of whatever it cost you, I'd say it is more akin
to vandalism.
> Should I turn a blind
> eye, be accepting petty crimes when they're indicative of a larger problem?
If a bit of crud falls off a truck passing your house, and nicks the paint on
your front fence, do you sue on principle? If your neighbor picks a rose from
your bush, do you demand payment? Do you scream abuse at him and tell everyone
else on the block what a turd he is? Do you fight all "petty crimes" or just
this one? If all, then OK. I mean, I don't have the time, but I can respect
that. But if it's just this one, then don't pull that "principle at stake"
guff with me, because the real answer is that you are irrationally emotional
about this one thing and you might just need to get a grip.
> Some might say yes, but I say no. Hell no. Far better that he understands
> the frustration and anger he causes.
I agree that it's good to understand this. I would never have guessed that
there might be people out there reacting this way to my own mailing list. I am
definitely going to alter the way I handle that. I just need to figure out
what to do with my current list to attempt to remediate any damage that I have
done.
Chris
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Sale announcements (Was Beware more SPAM...)
|
| (...) I believe that currently their use is in Martha Stewart's TV show (and other productions). However, they were catchphrases in a popular spoof history book when I was a kid called "1066 and all that" along with verdicts on various rulers (eg (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Sale announcements (Was Beware more SPAM...)
|
| (...) He had the opportunity to do that while I was doing business with him. And hey, it'd have been the polite thing to do. (...) You are one mean hombre. While I am genuinely angry with Andreas' actions, I would never compare him to Publisher's (...) (24 years ago, 26-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Sale announcements (Was Beware more SPAM...)
|
| (...) Sorry, my bad. How about Unsolicited Commercial E-mail? (...) "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 (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
