More on Spam

"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote in message
news:cidl7d0rcn@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
> "Jim Logajan" <JamesL@lugoj.com> wrote:
> > "Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
> > > However, it is like any other advertising medium.
> >
> > As has been pointed out, it is the receivers who bear the
> > brunt of the costs - that makes it unlike all other advertising
> > mediums. I can think of no other medium where the cost of
> > increasing the audience or the number of advertisers is
> > forced unwanted upon that audience.
>
> Try junk mail. You pay both with your time (which is more involved than
> with spam on a per item basis) and you pay someone else to haul it away.

Here comes the typical spammer excuses and attempts to compare postal mail
to spam. What a joke. Why don't you answer the question asked in the
previous post? You have admitted to spamming in a previous post.
"How did they manage to send unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE, a.k.a.
spam), without violating the terms of service (TOS) of their ISPs? What
ISPs were they using? I'd like to know so I can examine their TOS. "
Maybe you would like to answer that as you claimed to have spammed:
Message-ID: ch3oh80dsg@enews4.newsguy.com

"And I make no apology for conducting advertising and unsolicited commercial
internet correspondence (a.k.a. spam)"

Maybe you don't want to admit in public to having broken your contract with
your ISP or, depending on where you are and what you sent, breaking the law.

<Rest of typical spammer nonsense snipped>
http://www.spamfaq.net/spam-evils.shtml

http://www.radicati.com/cgi-local/br...chnology.shtml

http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore...28/story8.html
--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

"Mike Turco" <miketurco@yahoo-nospam4me.com> wrote in message
news:cie7sm02vfo@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Hi Harriet,>
> "Harriet" was sayin'> > is Adwear a form of spywear?> Yes.
> > my friend is under the impression that adwear is good.
> That's an odd thing to say. Can you ask your friend to clarify?
> Thanks,> Mike
---------------
Mike,
We had a conversation about making a computer run faster and he recommended
Adwear. and he said he was happy with the results. he said it works well.
He further stated that it removes cookies like that was the evil being. I
told him that cookies were good, that it gets you to your sites faster. but
of course, what do i know, i told him to search around on the internet for
the real answer.
Harriet

Mike,

Go here: http://www.snapfiles.com/get/adaware.html and download Ad-Aware
program. It will rip the spyware out. I use it as part of my everyday
morning routine and occasionally after heavy internet use. Also, ever so
often I also let Spybot (http://www.download.com/3000-8022-10122137.html)
and BitDefender (http://www.bitdefender.com/scan/license.php) take a crack
at my computer. These last two sometimes picks up what Ad-Aware misses.

Good luck!

Scott Jensen
--
Peer-to-peer networking (a.k.a. file-sharing) is entertainment's future.
If you'd like to know why, read the white paper at the link below.
http://www.scottjensenshow.com/P2PRevolution.pdf

"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote:

>
> So far, spam and spyware are neither ethical or legal. Let's stick to
> discussing ethical and legal ways to make money on the Internet.

We're already talking about spam & spyware has been brought up. Lets just go
for it & drag all the skeletons out of the closet. Pyramid schemes. I bet
that if one actually opened the (literally) thousands and thousands of spams
they got each month, they'd uncover quite a few scams. What about these
emails you get from "The nephew of the former minister of construction" who
has $50MM in the bank & wants to wire xfer it to your account.

Of course there's all the really bad stuff out there. Kook Klutz Klam,
snotzi's, child molesters, etc. I find it hard to get pissed about spam when
I put it in perspective. I don't like spam. Its a pain in the ass. But its
part of the cost of doing business. These other groups, though, I have some
tools in my toolbox that I would like to use on these guy's personally.


>
> If you do have Spyware on your computer, I'd recommend using these
> programs,
> in order:
> http://www.xblock.com/download-freeware.shtml XCleaner
> http://www.lavasoftusa.com/software/adaware/ Adaware
> http://www.majorgeeks.com/download3155.html HijackThis
> HijackThis is a bit tricky to use. See
> http://forums.majorgeeks.com/showthread.php?t=38752 for info. It has saved
> a
> lot of computers.

I've been using and recommending Pest Patrol, http://www.pestpatrol.com/ .
I've tried other programs and this one seems, so far, to work the best.

Spyware can be such a pain in the ass to remove. Once you find it and take
it out, you're often left with error messages when the computer boots up and
all kinds of headaches. The people who write this stuff, of course, have no
desire or motivation to write clean, reliable software.

> Unfortunately, I recently saw some spyware that prevents any .exe or .zip
> file from being downloaded so you may have to get someone to burn it on CD
> for you.

I've *never* had *any* problems with my computers that I wasn't able to
immediately identify and fix. I don't know if you know this, but I've been a
computer consultant for quite some time.

Mike

"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
> "Jim Logajan" <JamesL@lugoj.com> wrote:
>> "Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
>> > However, it is like any other advertising medium.
>>
>> As has been pointed out, it is the receivers who bear the
>> brunt of the costs - that makes it unlike all other advertising
>> mediums. I can think of no other medium where the cost of
>> increasing the audience or the number of advertisers is
>> forced unwanted upon that audience.
>
> Try junk mail.

It's not relevant: In the U.S. the U.S. Postal service is the only entity
allowed to place mail into your mailbox. You can file form 1500 (see
http://www.junkbusters.com/dmlaws.html#form for details) to stop unwanted
mail. Please please read that web page. If a mailing is received that is
a violation of the 1500 request, it may be submitted to the Postal Service
for possible enforcement action.

So with postal mail, the receiver does have some choice in the matter. The
same is NOT true of e-mail. Many entities are allowed to directly place e-
mail into your e-mail account. There is no equivalent to form 1500 and no
central enforcement authority.

So your "garbage" argument is hollow.

>> Automated spam filters consume memory and processing
>> resources -...
>
> And junk mail costs businesses processing time too PLUS increases
> their garbage collection fees.

Addressed above.

> Another important processing job
> that receptionists and secretaries do is handling unwanted cold calls
> from sales people. And that's assuming that an employee has a
> receptionist or secretary to handle these cold calls. If they don't,
> the employee ends up having to handle them. On a per item basis, cold
> calls cost businesses the most in employee time when compared to both
> spam or junk mail. Not to mention it is the most disruptive of
> employee productivity of all forms of advertising.

Your point is...? That one set of amoral (or immoral) actions excuses
another?

>> IMHO, engaging in or promoting UCE is morally equivalent
>> to engaging in or promoting the spray painting of slogans on
>> the "public" road in front of people's homes in a city where
>> such activity has not yet been deemed illegal. If one does
>> not understand the ethical ramifications or the source
>> of the ensuing community outrage, then I'm afraid no good
>> end can be forseen for this discussion.
>
> And while you're complaining about spammers, don't forget to whine

Your use of "whine" is patronizing and a rather blatant attempt at
"argument by ridicule." Not really appreciated.

> about the junk mailers, cold call sales people, billboard companies
> (who are simply evil for blotting out the natural beauty of our
> countryside and actually had a First Lady [Lady Bird Johnson] campaign
> against them), and all other advertisers ... that make the free market
> system work. Everything you have and own has been made possible and
> better with "evil" unwanted-by-most advertising.

You could ascribe to me all sorts of "whines" that I haven't made and then
ridicule me for them. It's one thing to attack things I say - it's quite
another to attack me for things I haven't said. Again, not really
appreciated.

> Advertising is a necessary part of business and there is no way to do
> it without pissing someone off. Even if you try to limit how many you
> piss off you will still piss most off. But not to do advertising is
> suicidal for any business.

No one is arguing against all forms of advertising. The subject here is
spam and only spam. While there may be other forms of advertising that may
be unethical, their existence doesn't justify engaging in other unethical
forms of advertising.

> Unsolicited commercial email is really no better or worse than any
> other form of advertisers overall.

I and others keep pointing out how spam has gotten out of control and the
ways in which e-mail UCE is different from other forms of advertising, and
yet you keep repeating your opinion without any supporting evidence!

> Businesses should do it if it
> produces them profits and it has for certain types of products and
> services. Not all, but that can be said of any form of advertising.

Look, you also mentioned earlier that some firms you know have allegedly
used UCE successfully and when I asked, you elided the following questions
without answering - which if you continue to refuse to answer I'm afraid
I'll have to assume you are making up facts:

"Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
> Sure, I've had clients that have successfully used unsolicited email
> correspondence.

How did they manage to send unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE, a.k.a.
spam), without violating the terms of service (TOS) of their ISPs?
What ISPs were they using? I'd like to know so I can examine their
TOS. Also, what was the nature of the products or services?

"Harriet" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:cigola0uf4@enews2.newsguy.com:

>> "Harriet" was sayin'> > is Adwear a form of spywear?> Yes.
>> > my friend is under the impression that adwear is good.
>> That's an odd thing to say. Can you ask your friend to clarify?
>> Thanks,> Mike

Harriet and Mike, I'm guessing that Harriet's friend was reffering to Ad-
Aware, a spyware/adware removal tool mentioned by Scott in his response
(http://www.lavasoftusa.com/software/adaware/).

George Demmer
-------
Reality Marketing Associates
Vancouver, BC

"Mike Turco" <miketurco@yahoo-nospam4me.com> wrote in message
news:cigoqe012et@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
>
> "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > So far, spam and spyware are neither ethical or legal. Let's stick to
> > discussing ethical and legal ways to make money on the Internet.
>
> We're already talking about spam & spyware has been brought up. Lets just
go
> for it & drag all the skeletons out of the closet. Pyramid schemes. I bet
> that if one actually opened the (literally) thousands and thousands of
spams
> they got each month, they'd uncover quite a few scams.

Also illegal, despite the cliams you read in those alleging the USPS has
said it's legal. Just the opposite is true. Sending them by email, it's
still illegal.
http://www.usps.com/postalinspectors/chainlet.htm
The new twist is using PayPal and PayPal will kill the account of anyone
doing that.

What about these
> emails you get from "The nephew of the former minister of construction"
who
> has $50MM in the bank & wants to wire xfer it to your account.

Heh, 419 scam. Old news pretty much. Foward those with full headers to
419.fcd@usss.treas.gov The various web based email providers are constantly
killing the accounts of the senders of those. IPs assigned to Nigeria are
routinely blocked due to the spew of 419 scams. If you search
news.google.com for 419 you'll see some articles from the press over there
about prosecutions.

>
> Of course there's all the really bad stuff out there. Kook Klutz Klam,
> snotzi's, child molesters, etc. I find it hard to get pissed about spam
when
> I put it in perspective. I don't like spam. Its a pain in the ass. But its
> part of the cost of doing business.

So are locks and burglar alarms. It doesn't mean I brush off physical
break-in attempts. Neither will I brush off electronic break-in attempts to
spam. My home router log shows many such attempts. Anyone connected to a
high speed DSL or cable modem who doesn't have a router/firewall, even if
they only have one computer, is asking for trouble. (I don't believe in
software firewalls since the attack has to reach the PC for those to work.)

These other groups, though, I have some
> tools in my toolbox that I would like to use on these guy's personally.
>
>
> >
> > If you do have Spyware on your computer, I'd recommend using these
> > programs,
> > in order:
> > http://www.xblock.com/download-freeware.shtml XCleaner
> > http://www.lavasoftusa.com/software/adaware/ Adaware
> > http://www.majorgeeks.com/download3155.html HijackThis
> > HijackThis is a bit tricky to use. See
> > http://forums.majorgeeks.com/showthread.php?t=38752 for info. It has
saved
> > a
> > lot of computers.
>
> I've been using and recommending Pest Patrol, http://www.pestpatrol.com/ .
> I've tried other programs and this one seems, so far, to work the best.

Someone just recommended Spy Sweeper to me last night who put it on a
reformatted PC after giving up on trying to get rid of the spyware that
wouldn't go away. Probably similar to Pest Patrol.


--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.

As has been obvious in this and the previous thread on the topic of
spam, it is a highly charged subject.

I suggest that both sides have valid points in the debate (as
represented by my moderator colleagues Jim and Scott).

On the anti-spam side, however, the emotions seem to run much higher and
anyone who doesn't share their strong opposition is labelled "pro-spam."

Now, I agree that spam is irritating. It causes lots of anger among
recipients.

But let's look at the two prime arguments made by the anti-spam lobby:

1. It is illegal/against the TOS of ISPs
This is offered up as the trump-card of arguments, as if it defeats all
others. And I can even agree that the statement is partially/largely
true (so there's no need to parse the details!). But let's get serious
here: there are lots of things that are against the law, yet done by
many -- if not most -- people.

Driving above the posted speed limit is against the law. Yet most
drivers do it, at least sometimes. Some of the best drivers do it most
of the time. Copying software, music, videos, and the like is against
the law...yet is done by millions. Downloading copyrighted material off
the Internet...well you get the point. Do I even need to mention that
there are still some states that outlaw oral ***?

The point being that something being against the law (or a contract) in
and of itself does not really establish the merit (or lack thereof) of a
subject. Even if all involved stipulate to its illegality, the practice
can still continue unabated.

Like spam.

2. Spam is immoral/unethical because it places costs or burdens on the
unwilling recipients.
Once again, let's say this is true. But as has been pointed out, it is
true for other means of marketing as well. Direct and indirect costs
could be calculated for many -- if not most -- means of marketing. Yet
those forms of marketing continue to exist and flourish despite this
reality.

In fact, just about all marketing pisses someone off. (If it doesn't,
you're probably not trying hard enough to grow your business!) Since it
is almost always unwanted, the best you can really hope for is for your
marketing efforts to be tolerated.

And a lot of long-established marketing techniques have a) significant
costs involved and b) a major irritation factor. Take cold-calls to
businesses as just one example -- they are way more irritating and time-
consuming (therefore expensive) than spam as far as I am concerned.

So, since there's a good chance I've already been labelled a pro-spammer
by the anti-spammers, let me point out why spam is here to stay whether
people like it or not:

1. It is very cheap for the senders and therefore relatively easy to
justify.
A very tiny response rate can make it profitable for the advertiser, and
even if it is not profitable, advertisers without much money will try it
with a "not much to lose" attitude. As long as there is any result
generated, some marketers will continue to use it.

This is not an endorsement, just a statement of fact. Which is what I
believe Scott was also trying to state in some of his posts.

2. An anti-spam industry now exists and needs spam to justify its
continued existense.
This parallels the computer virus situation: I think all can agree that
viruses have no positives whatsoever attached to them, yet they continue
to exist (and I hope making that statement does not get me labelled a
virus supporter!).

However, there are numerous large companies -- like Symantec (Norton
Antivirus) and McAfee -- that DEPEND on the continued existence of virus
attacks for their profits.

This has now happened with spam. A LOT of people and companies make many
millions of dollars in the "fight against spam." This symbiotic
relationship tends to ensure the continued existence of both sides of the
battle.

3. The result of the above point is that spam is becoming less
irritating to the average recipient.
My spam filter catches well over 95% of the 200-300 spam e-mails I
receive daily. So, the reality of the situation is that it no longer
bothers me much...not like a few years ago when I had to deal with it
all myself. And, of course, the fact that I don't even SEE it anymore
makes it less likely than ever to have any effectiveness whatsoever.

Because this allows those who are most irritated with spam to reduce
that irritation, it will also reduce the number of people fighting
vehemently against it.

Finally, just in case any of the militant anti-spammers are still
reading, here are the reasons why advertisers should NOT use spam:

1. First and foremost, it will get you a great deal of hate.
As you can tell by the reactions here among people supposedly interested
in marketing, there will be a lot of abuse heaped on you if you spam.
Your goal with any marketing should be to sell, but the damage you do to
your reputation should be considered as part of the total picture.

2. Potential hassles.
There is a potential for hassles with your ISP, legal or regulatory
problems, and retaliatory attacks or threats from the more irrational
anti-spammers.

3. Weak results.
Since the vast majority of spam is poorly done and even more poorly
targeted to an appropriate audience, and better filters are allowing
ever more people to avoid seeing it altogether, it is going to get
harder than ever to generate profit from spamming.

Ultimately THIS IS THE PRIMARY METHOD OF REDUCING IT. If advertisers
can't make a profit, they will stop using this method.

Again, without trying to put a value judgement on it either way, this is
the reality of marketing: if it makes money for the advertisers, odds
are that it will continue. If it doesn't, it will stop.

When anti-spammers lash out against anyone who is not as vehemently
opposed to spam as they are, they often come across as emotional and
somewhat out of touch with the reality of why spam continues and how
marketing decisions are made. To them, I would strongly recommend
applying some good marketing concepts and telling those you want to
influence WHAT'S IN IT FOR THEM if they change their ways. That's just
marketing 101: stop talking about yourself and talk about their reality,
their self-interest.

Otherwise, you can go ahead and lament the state of the universe if you
want, but that will not change the reality.

It may, however drive up your blood pressure! ;-)

George Demmer
--------
Reality Marketing Associates
Vancouver, BC

Really, I didn't want this to devolve to a religious argument about whether
or not you find spam to be morally palatable. Ask a thousand people, they
will have a thousand answers, just like any religious topic.

What I am more interested in is measurable statistics on the efficacy of
advertising via email. Espescially with regard to how targeted the original
mailing list was.

--
--
Patrick
www.covot.com
small business tools
"Jim Logajan" <JamesL@lugoj.com> wrote in message
news:cid8bu0ac1@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
> "Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
>> "covot" <no@reply.com> wrote:
>>> Regardless of your feelings on, or definitions of, SPAM.
>>> My question is a bit more simple:
>>>
>>> does it work? does sending out unsolicited bulk email
>>> increase business? Do spammers actually make money.
>>
>> Sure, I've had clients that have successfully used unsolicited email
>> correspondence.
>
> How did they manage to send unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE, a.k.a.
> spam), without violating the terms of service (TOS) of their ISPs? What
> ISPs were they using? I'd like to know so I can examine their TOS. Also,
> what was the nature of the products or services?
>
>> However, it is like any other advertising medium.
>
> As has been pointed out, it is the receivers who bear the brunt of the
> costs - that makes it unlike all other advertising mediums. I can think of
> no other medium where the cost of increasing the audience or the number of
> advertisers is forced unwanted upon that audience. Automated spam filters
> consume memory and processing resources - and without automated spam
> filters, the incoming spam still consumes large amounts of memory and
> human
> time in scanning it for legit e-mail. The consumption of those resources
> costs money - and the nature of the beast is such that spammers do not pay
> for most of those costs.
>
> My own ISP has had to expend considerable time and money upgrading their
> mail servers to handle the spam load because their previous systems were
> beginning to fail under the increasing load although their customer base
> hadn't increased by very much. And even with all that, I have to spend at
> least 5 to 10 minutes a day wading through several hundred spam messages a
> day in my SpamAssassin filter to weed out the occasional false positive.
>
> IMHO, engaging in or promoting UCE is morally equivalent to engaging in or
> promoting the spray painting of slogans on the "public" road in front of
> people's homes in a city where such activity has not yet been deemed
> illegal. If one does not understand the ethical ramifications or the
> source
> of the ensuing community outrage, then I'm afraid no good end can be
> forseen for this discussion.
>

"Jim Logajan" <JamesL@lugoj.com> wrote:
> "Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
> > "Jim Logajan" <JamesL@lugoj.com> wrote:
> >> "Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
> >> > However, it is like any other advertising medium.
> >>
> >> As has been pointed out, it is the receivers who bear the
> >> brunt of the costs - that makes it unlike all other advertising
> >> mediums. I can think of no other medium where the cost of
> >> increasing the audience or the number of advertisers is
> >> forced unwanted upon that audience.
> >
> > Try junk mail.
>
> It's not relevant: In the U.S. the U.S. Postal service is the only
> entity allowed to place mail into your mailbox. You can file form
> 1500 (see http://www.junkbusters.com/dmlaws.html#form for
> details) to stop unwanted mail. Please please read that web page.
> If a mailing is received that is a violation of the 1500 request, it
> may be submitted to the Postal Service for possible enforcement
> action.

That ONLY applies to ***ually oriented material. "Please please" before you
tell me to read your links, YOU should read your own links in their entirety
and those links they link to. At the TOP of Form 1500
(http://www.usps.com/forms/_pdf/ps1500.pdf) is this statement:

"If you are receiving unwanted ***ually oriented advertisements coming
through the mail to your home or business..."

You are not to use Form 1500 for any other form of junk mail. Now in your
link, it advocates abusing the US Supreme Court decision and Form 1500 to
stop all forms of junk mail by lying about what you consider to be ***ually
oriented material. That someone can possibly get away with doing so doesn't
bolster your claim that people control their mail ... though I'm assuming
you meant for them to do so legally ... but rather indicates a lack of
morals and ethics on part of the person that so abuses Form 1500 and/or
advocates such abuse. And since one of the things you claim is that spam is
unethical and thus wrong, this is a rather hypocritical stance for you to
take.

> So with postal mail, the receiver does have some choice in the
> matter.

No, they do not. In fact, the US Postal Service offers its own unique junk
mail service (http://pe.usps.gov/text/dmm200/discount.htm) which you cannot
get removed from in any way or form. Junk mailers can go to the USPS, pay
to have their junk mail sent to everyone in your zip code, do not even have
to put your specific address on the junk mail, AND get a lower postal rate
for doing so. The USPS will then put that junk mail into every mailbox in
your zip code and, saying the junk mail isn't ***ually oriented, there is no
form or way which you can exempt yourself from receiving these junk
mailings.

> The same is NOT true of e-mail. Many entities are allowed to
> directly place e-mail into your e-mail account. There is no
> equivalent to form 1500 and no central enforcement authority.
>
> So your "garbage" argument is hollow.

Since your "1500" argument doesn't stand up as I've shown above, it is what
is hollow.

> > Another important processing job that receptionists and
> > secretaries do is handling unwanted cold calls from sales
> > people. And that's assuming that an employee has a
> > receptionist or secretary to handle these cold calls. If they
> > don't, the employee ends up having to handle them. On a
> > per item basis, cold calls cost businesses the most in
> > employee time when compared to both spam or junk mail.
> > Not to mention it is the most disruptive of employee
> > productivity of all forms of advertising.
>
> Your point is...? That one set of amoral (or immoral) actions
> excuses another?

Are you actually saying cold calls are amoral and/or immoral? I'm not
calling cold calls either of those things just as I'm not calling spam those
either.

> >> IMHO, engaging in or promoting UCE is morally equivalent
> >> to engaging in or promoting the spray painting of slogans on
> >> the "public" road in front of people's homes in a city where
> >> such activity has not yet been deemed illegal. If one does
> >> not understand the ethical ramifications or the source
> >> of the ensuing community outrage, then I'm afraid no good
> >> end can be forseen for this discussion.
> >
> > And while you're complaining about spammers, don't forget
> > to whine
>
> Your use of "whine" is patronizing and a rather blatant attempt
> at "argument by ridicule." Not really appreciated.

I used it for variety and flavor. I meant no personal attack in doing so.

> > about the junk mailers, cold call sales people, billboard
> > companies (who are simply evil for blotting out the natural
> > beauty of our countryside and actually had a First Lady
> > [Lady Bird Johnson] campaign against them), and all other
> > advertisers ... that make the free market system work.
> > Everything you have and own has been made possible and
> > better with "evil" unwanted-by-most advertising.
>
> You could ascribe to me all sorts of "whines" that I haven't
> made and then ridicule me for them. It's one thing to attack
> things I say - it's quite another to attack me for things I
> haven't said. Again, not really appreciated.

And not really done. I didn't ascribe any of those "whines" to you. I
simply suggested you add them to the list of your complaints since they're
along the same lines. For I didn't say, "you're also whining about" but did
said "don't forget to whine about". Again, nothing was ascribed to you.

Oh, and, ironically, you just ascribed something to me that I didn't say.
;-)

> > Advertising is a necessary part of business and there is no
> > way to do it without pissing someone off. Even if you try
> > to limit how many you piss off you will still piss most off.
> > But not to do advertising is suicidal for any business.
>
> No one is arguing against all forms of advertising. The subject
> here is spam and only spam.

Yes, and I was directly discussing spam. Spam in how it relates to all
forms of advertising. To not view spam in light of other forms of
advertising is to not have the true reality-based complete perspective on
spam and that is what I was presenting.

> While there may be other forms of advertising that may be
> unethical, their existence doesn't justify engaging in other
> unethical forms of advertising.

But I'm not saying those other forms of advertising are unethical ... just
as I'm not saying spam is unethical.

> > Unsolicited commercial email is really no better or worse
> > than any other form of advertisers overall.
>
> I and others keep pointing out how spam has gotten out of
> control and the ways in which e-mail UCE is different from
> other forms of advertising, and yet you keep repeating your
> opinion without any supporting evidence!

And I keep showing you how it is very much like other forms of advertising
and you've yet to show that it isn't. And every argument you've raised, I
believe I have adequately addressed and answered.

> > Businesses should do it if it produces them profits and
> > it has for certain types of products and services. Not
> > all, but that can be said of any form of advertising.
>
> Look, you also mentioned earlier that some firms you
> know have allegedly used UCE successfully and when
> I asked, you elided the following questions without
> answering - which if you continue to refuse to answer
> I'm afraid I'll have to assume you are making up facts:
>
> "Scott T. Jensen" <stj@charter.net> wrote:
> > Sure, I've had clients that have successfully used
> > unsolicited email correspondence.
>
> How did they manage to send unsolicited commercial
> e-mail (UCE, a.k.a spam), without violating the terms
> of service (TOS) of their ISPs? What ISPs were they
> using? I'd like to know so I can examine their TOS.
> Also, what was the nature of the products or services?

I will not reveal a client's ISP to you or anyone. Nor I will reveal the
names of any of my clients who have in the past or currently use unsolicited
commercial email without their prior and informed approval. And I won't
even ask them to approve this information release to this newsgroup since I
believe you and other anti-spammers here have shown great hostility towards
such businesses and, as shown by you and other anti-spammers advocating the
wrong usage of Form 1500, will very likely wrongly act against them. I
won't even give the nature of their businesses to prevent any possible
hunting expeditions for them. This is why I didn't reply to these questions
of yours last time.

Now if you don't want to believe such clients of mine exist, that's your
right. You can also believe I'm not a marketing consultant and, if you
like, can even believe that I'm a well-trained dog typing this reply. I'll
let my history in these business newsgroups speak for itself, my integrity,
and my reputation.

*woof* *woof*

Scott Jensen
--
Got a business question, problem, or dream?
Discuss it with the professionals that hang out at...
misc.business.consulting, misc.business.marketing.moderated
misc.business.moderated, and misc.entrepreneurs.moderated