Subject:
|
Re: Sale announcements (Was Beware more SPAM...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 26 Sep 2000 17:48:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1292 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy H. Sproat writes:
> > > > 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.
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.
> > > > 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.
You are one mean hombre. While I am genuinely angry with Andreas' actions, I
would never compare him to Publisher's Clearinghouse. What an ugly group of
sharks they are.
> > 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.
That's probably fair. He receives nothing from be because I won't be
giving him any more money, right? Theft, vandilism, either way it's bad.
> > Should I turn a blind
> > eye, be accepting petty crimes when they're indicative of a larger problem?
> Do you fight all "petty crimes" or just
> this one? If all, then OK.
First off, I can tell the difference between negligent and aggressive actions.
I'm typically more forgiving of negligent behavior. But if someone steals from
my yard (per your example), then yes, I take actions against that person. For
it's symptomatic of a larger undercurrent, of their disregard for other
peoples' property. It's usually easier and quicker to take care of these
problems when they're small. If it's as small as a stolen rose, then show that
you expect respect and you usually get it. If it's ignored and the problem
becomes too big, I've screwed up.
But you're really comparing apples and oranges. The solutions are totally
different. Protocol for handling a stolen rose is rational and forgiving
face-to-face discussion of the event. Protocol for handling spam is less
tolerant.
Cheers,
- jsproat
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
