More on Spam

"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:cj9so001k3o@enews2.newsguy.com:

>> "Maren Purves" <m.purves@jach.hawaii.edu> wrote in message
>> news:cj4lkr02li1@enews4.newsguy.com...
>>
>> spam costs me a mouse click.
>
> Ask your ISP what it costs you.

While you're at it, you can ask your ISP what viruses cost you, what tech
support for all the dummies that can't figure out how to use the service
cost you, or what the plant watering service at their offices cost you.
Nobody has argued that there are no costs, but there are lots of other
costs you could argue about.

The fact is that if you are an ISP in business today, you will have
certain costs of doing business, and spam is one of those. You could make
similar objections to junk mail (how much does the mailroom clerk cost
you?) or telemarketing (how much does the receptionist cost you?), but
once again, this in and of itself does not seem to be a very convincing
argument. Even more importantly, it does not in any way bring us closer
to solving the problem.

Besides, even if spam disappeared tomorrow, and your ISP could afford to
drop everyone's rate by, let's say $1 a month, would they do it? If the
market has shown that it will bear the current price, then my advice
would be no, don't lower your rate.

The flip side is that, as spam-filtering improves, as naive advertisers
sucked in to using spam by false promises learn their lessons, and as --
hopefully -- the people wanting spam to decrease learn more effective
ways (unlike what's gone on in this thread!) to educate those that
contribute to it unwittingly or knowingly, the costs of spam will
decrease through natural market forces. I have yet to hear of a more
effective approach.

>> Maren
>> (BTW: you (McWebber) also apparently consider all UCE spam, including
>> offering the company that owns a web site something (I never did this
>> yet, but have been considering it many times, meaning sending _one_
>> email to _one_ company) that they list as "out of stock" that you can
>> supply? and put it in the same category as those that offer me
>> mortgages I didn't apply for of which I get about 10/day, not to
>> mention other things that I have even less use for?)
>>
> Since I have no publicly published email address that solicits email
> contact, all UCE to me is spam. I have yet to see a single UCE that
> was sent to me and me alone and was not bulk.

You keep missing the point that almost all forms of advertising are
unsolicited. Singling that fact out about spam really means very little.

Filtering technology has been used in most types of advertising:
secretary to sort mail and screen calls; TIVO and Mute buttons to filter
TV ads; clipping services for newspapers to filter print ads and
irrelevant articles; these are all filtering mechanisms of some sort.
Many of them contribute nicely to the GNP. And they were all created and
handled effectively by a free market approach.

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

"George Demmer" <nwsgrps@realityNOSPAMassociates.com> wrote in message
news:cjak1p02hto@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> >
> > Spammers like one of the other moderators?
> >
> > Message-ID: ch3oh80dsg@enews4.newsguy.com
> > "And I make no apology for conducting advertising and unsolicited
> > commercial internet correspondence (a.k.a. spam)"
>
> I must thank you for confirming my points for me in such a perfect way. I
> even tried to let you partially off the hook with a winking smiley...but
> no. You have to PROVE that you misrepresent people.
>
> The full quote from Scott's post (with some brackets added to help you
> identify the parts of the sentence that belong together -- since you seem
to
> be having trouble):
>
> [And I make no apology for conducting advertising] and [unsolicited
> commercial internet correspondence (a.k.a. spam) is just one form of it.]
>
> Scott may not win a "Grammarian of the Year" award anytime soon for that
> sentence, but it does not say what you have repeatedly insisted it says.

No? One form of it? "It" being the advertising he has conducted? I guess it
depends on the meaning of "it" in this case. I wouldn't expect someone who
so vigoursly defends spam not to use it.


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

"George Demmer" <nwsgrps@realityNOSPAMassociates.com> wrote in message
news:cjakho0le2@enews3.newsguy.com...
>
> "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in
> news:cj9so001k3o@enews2.newsguy.com:
>
> >> "Maren Purves" <m.purves@jach.hawaii.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:cj4lkr02li1@enews4.newsguy.com...
> >>
> >> spam costs me a mouse click.
> >
> > Ask your ISP what it costs you.
>
> While you're at it, you can ask your ISP what viruses cost you, what tech
> support for all the dummies that can't figure out how to use the service
> cost you, or what the plant watering service at their offices cost you.

None of which involve theft of their services as is the case with spam.
Viruses probably cost your ISP close to zero. Except those worms
deliberately sent out by spammers in order to turn innocent users computers
into open proxies.

> Nobody has argued that there are no costs, but there are lots of other
> costs you could argue about.

All of which have zero to do with spam.

>
> The fact is that if you are an ISP in business today, you will have
> certain costs of doing business, and spam is one of those.

So are burglar alarms.

> You could make
> similar objections to junk mail (how much does the mailroom clerk cost
> you?) or telemarketing (how much does the receptionist cost you?), but
> once again, this in and of itself does not seem to be a very convincing
> argument.

Once again you demonstrate your ignorance on the subject and fail to see how
spam does not scale. No postal junk mailer can send you enough junk mail to
fill your mailroom so no other mail can be delivered. The costs to the
postal mailer prevent that. There are virtually no costs to the sender of
spam. Only costs to the recipients.

> >> Maren
> >> (BTW: you (McWebber) also apparently consider all UCE spam, including
> >> offering the company that owns a web site something (I never did this
> >> yet, but have been considering it many times, meaning sending _one_
> >> email to _one_ company) that they list as "out of stock" that you can
> >> supply? and put it in the same category as those that offer me
> >> mortgages I didn't apply for of which I get about 10/day, not to
> >> mention other things that I have even less use for?)
> >>
> > Since I have no publicly published email address that solicits email
> > contact, all UCE to me is spam. I have yet to see a single UCE that
> > was sent to me and me alone and was not bulk.
>
> You keep missing the point that almost all forms of advertising are
> unsolicited. Singling that fact out about spam really means very little.

All forms of advertising cost money to the advertiser, except spam. Do you
get collect telemarketing phone calls? Does your postal advertising arrive
postage due? Your spam arrives postage due.

>
> Filtering technology has been used in most types of advertising:
> secretary to sort mail and screen calls; TIVO and Mute buttons to filter
> TV ads; clipping services for newspapers to filter print ads and
> irrelevant articles; these are all filtering mechanisms of some sort.

All of which have zero to do with spam and all of those forms of advertising
cost the advertiser money so they are self-limiting, unlike spam.

> Many of them contribute nicely to the GNP. And they were all created and
> handled effectively by a free market approach.

All of them are legal and do not involve theft.

> Reality Marketing Associates
> Vancouver, BC
>

Then I'm sure you're familiar with the PIPEDA? Unsolicited email is
basically illegal in Canada now.
http://www.itbusiness.ca/index.asp?t...n=61&sid=55597


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

"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:cjauvi02uc6@enews2.newsguy.com:

>
> "George Demmer" <nwsgrps@realityNOSPAMassociates.com> wrote in message
> news:cjak1p02hto@enews2.newsguy.com...

>> [And I make no apology for conducting advertising] and [unsolicited
>> commercial internet correspondence (a.k.a. spam) is just one form of
>> it.]
>>
>> Scott may not win a "Grammarian of the Year" award anytime soon for
>> that sentence, but it does not say what you have repeatedly insisted
>> it says.
>
> No? One form of it? "It" being the advertising he has conducted? I
> guess it depends on the meaning of "it" in this case. I wouldn't
> expect someone who so vigoursly defends spam not to use it.

Well, you know what they say about assuming.

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

"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in=20
news:cjauva01s5n@enews1.newsguy.com:

> "George Demmer" <nwsgrps@realityNOSPAMassociates.com> wrote in message
> news:cjakho0le2@enews3.newsguy.com...

[Ad nauseum repetition of the same points and insults you've made many
times snipped]

OK...so like I said, if you have nothing new to add, why keep posting?

To once again try to help you out -- while covering every point you
raise -- let me start with a definition:

a-nal-o-gy n. pl. a-nal-o-gies
1. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise
dissimilar.
2. A comparison based on such similarity.

See, that is why people keep bringing up things that are not spam in
this thread. That should cover most of your post.

Second, yes...spam is next to free for the advertiser. As I've already
pointed out, so what?

[Special note to McWebber...analogies coming!!]
You may have noticed that the Internet has made a LOT of things that
used to cost money to do or get available for free. That definition of
analogy above used to require paying for a dictionary (or at least going
to the library to use it). A map of the city (or any city) or directions
to the restaurant you're going to used to cost money...now it's free on
the 'Net. Porn used to cost a lot (not to mention having to go to nasty
parts of town)...now -- free on the 'Net. Tech support for your computer
used to cost money...now Googling most common problems will get you a
solution quick and free.

Since you've already been reminded many times that many other means of
advertising have direct and indirect costs to the recipient, you're now
focusing on the low cost to advertisers as though that should bring a
special penalty.

Why? Like those other things, part of the appeal of the Internet is the
ability to instantly send messages around the world without using
natural resouces and otherwise damaging the environment -- for free.

Using this capability for commercial communication was a totally natural
and predictable development.

And before you start reciting your anti-spam mantras again, let me point
out the REAL problem with 99.9999% of spam:

IT IS BAD MARKETING.

As simple as that. That's why it should stop. Terrible targeting.
Terrible copy. No connection with the recipient. Horrible response. Just
bad marketing strategy.

As I've said before, this is where the low cost of sending it plays a
role. Because people see it as cheap, they don't bother doing it well.
By doing this, they have seriously damaged an amazing communication
medium and turned people like you into millitant opponents.

The solution, as I pointed out in my last post, is education and letting
the marketplace correct this.

That's the irony about this debate: I don't like spam either and I'd
like to see it greatly reduced. But I think your arguments and your
presentation of your position stink. They are extremely ineffective ways
of persuading others of your position or generating change...once again
very poor marketing. Sure you can get a certain reactionary audience to
agree with you, but that will not create the change you seek. So why are
you identifying me or Scott or others here as the enemy? Just because we
don't support those same ineffective arguments?

>> Reality Marketing Associates
>> Vancouver, BC
>
> Then I'm sure you're familiar with the PIPEDA? Unsolicited email is
> basically illegal in Canada now.
> http://www.itbusiness.ca/index.asp?t...61&sid=3D55597

Well I am fairly familiar. For example, I am aware that provincial law
in BC (BC PIPA) supercedes PIPEDA. But clearly you are not familiar with
it.

These laws have only minor relevance to spam since what they primarily
deal with are the uses that business can make of information collected
=66rom their customers. If you wish to do anything beyond what a
"reasonable person" would expect you have to get permission.

But it does not control business-to-business communication without
personal info about an individual nor does it in any way affect use of
publicly available info (such as what is published on a public web page
like this one). It does not control any info which would qualify as
"business card info".

You need to stop trying to stretch things which are not really designed
to combat spam or other forms of advertising to conform to your wishes.

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

"George Demmer" <nwsgrps@realityNOSPAMassociates.com> wrote in message
news:cjg5it01d96@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
> "McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in=20
> news:cjauva01s5n@enews1.newsguy.com:
>
> > "George Demmer" <nwsgrps@realityNOSPAMassociates.com> wrote in message
> > news:cjakho0le2@enews3.newsguy.com...
>
> [Ad nauseum repetition of the same points and insults you've made many
> times snipped]
>
> OK...so like I said, if you have nothing new to add, why keep posting?

Why do you keep making the same apples and oranges comparisons of spam to
non-postage due forms of advertisng?

>
> To once again try to help you out -- while covering every point you
> raise -- let me start with a definition:
>
> a-nal-o-gy n. pl. a-nal-o-gies
> 1. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise
> dissimilar.
> 2. A comparison based on such similarity.

There is no similarity with spam, which the sender pays to receive and
normal forms of advertising that the sender does not DIRECTLY pay for.

>
> See, that is why people keep bringing up things that are not spam in
> this thread. That should cover most of your post.

They should try to bring up an analogy that is actually an analogy. Like
junk fax.

>
> Second, yes...spam is next to free for the advertiser. As I've already
> pointed out, so what?


>
> [Special note to McWebber...analogies coming!!]
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...logy&x=10&y=13

> You may have noticed that the Internet has made a LOT of things that
> used to cost money to do or get available for free.

None of which involve taking from someone without their permission.

<snip things that are not analogous to spam>

>
> Since you've already been reminded many times that many other means of
> advertising have direct and indirect costs to the recipient, you're now
> focusing on the low cost to advertisers as though that should bring a
> special penalty.

No, no other form of advertising, besides junk faxes, have a direct cost to
the recpient.

>
> Why? Like those other things, part of the appeal of the Internet is the
> ability to instantly send messages around the world without using
> natural resouces and otherwise damaging the environment -- for free.

Ahh, here comes the oldest spammer excuse on the Internet. One of the first
major league spammers actually used the domain name "savetrees.com" to send
his spam. He now claims to be anti-spam and has moved into other businesses
after being sued by Compuserve.

> And before you start reciting your anti-spam mantras again, let me point
> out the REAL problem with 99.9999% of spam:
>
> IT IS BAD MARKETING.

That may be your opinion, but the real problem with spam is that it doesn't
scale.

>
> As simple as that. That's why it should stop. Terrible targeting.
> Terrible copy. No connection with the recipient. Horrible response. Just
> bad marketing strategy.

Lack of permission.

>
> As I've said before, this is where the low cost of sending it plays a
> role. Because people see it as cheap, they don't bother doing it well.

Greed does play a role. When people see a chance to shift their costs onto
the recipient, they take the chance regardless of the ethics involved.

> By doing this, they have seriously damaged an amazing communication
> medium and turned people like you into millitant opponents.

I always take offense when someone tries to take something of mine without
permission.

>
> The solution, as I pointed out in my last post, is education and letting
> the marketplace correct this.

Anti-spam lists and DNSBL's are the marketplace's answer. Which is why more
and more ISPs are kicking spammers off and the spammers are being relegated
to net space that is widely blocked.

>
> That's the irony about this debate: I don't like spam either and I'd
> like to see it greatly reduced. But I think your arguments and your
> presentation of your position stink.

I would say the same thing about your alleged analogies.

> They are extremely ineffective ways
> of persuading others of your position or generating change...once again
> very poor marketing. Sure you can get a certain reactionary audience to
> agree with you, but that will not create the change you seek.

It's interesting that every poll shows the vast majority of Internet users
do not want any unsolicited commercial email. They want an advertiser to
have their permission before sending ads. Why is that concept so difficult
for advertisers to grasp? Did you ever stop and do the math on what would
happen if every small business decided to just send you one email per year?

> So why are
> you identifying me or Scott or others here as the enemy? Just because we
> don't support those same ineffective arguments?

Because you continue to argue in favor of theft of services, violating ISP
terms of service and in favor of something the overwhelming majority of the
public is against.

>
> >> Reality Marketing Associates
> >> Vancouver, BC
> >
> > Then I'm sure you're familiar with the PIPEDA? Unsolicited email is
> > basically illegal in Canada now.
> > http://www.itbusiness.ca/index.asp?t...61&sid=3D55597
>
> Well I am fairly familiar. For example, I am aware that provincial law
> in BC (BC PIPA) supercedes PIPEDA. But clearly you are not familiar with
> it.

I trust the legal experts quoted by itbusiness.ca to know what they're
talking about. Suzzanne Morin, assistant general counsel for Bell Canada.
While there hasn't been a test case yet, according to her an email address
is considered personal information protected by PIPEDA.

See also:
http://e-com.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/..._gv00246e.html
"Under this Act, as of January 2004, commercial bulk e-mailers who establish
or acquire lists of e-mail addresses must ensure that recipients have given
some form of consent to commercial solicitation. This law also specifies
that e-mail addresses can only be used for the purpose for which they are
collected, and that the owners of these e-mail addresses must consent to any
secondary use."

> But it does not control business-to-business communication without
> personal info about an individual nor does it in any way affect use of
> publicly available info (such as what is published on a public web page
> like this one). It does not control any info which would qualify as
> "business card info".

I find no pages in Google for the term "business card info" and PIPEDA.
Where did you find that term?


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

"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:cjhpv404g8@enews4.newsguy.com:

>
> "George Demmer" <nwsgrps@realityNOSPAMassociates.com> wrote in message
> news:cjg5it01d96@enews4.newsguy.com...

>> To once again try to help you out -- while covering every point you
>> raise -- let me start with a definition:
>>
>> a-nal-o-gy n. pl. a-nal-o-gies
>> 1. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise
>> dissimilar.
>> 2. A comparison based on such similarity.
>
> There is no similarity with spam,

You're kidding, right?

> It's interesting that every poll shows the vast majority of Internet
> users do not want any unsolicited commercial email.

No more interesting than the fact that the vast majority of people don't
want to pay taxes. It's a given. So what?

> They want an
> advertiser to have their permission before sending ads. Why is that
> concept so difficult for advertisers to grasp?

You're kidding again, right? Perhaps the fact that advertising by definition
involves "giving notice" or "making known" could offer a hint. You do
understand that advertising is generally delivered without asking permission,
right?

> Did you ever stop and
> do the math on what would happen if every small business decided to
> just send you one email per year?

Why? Do you really think this is likely to happen in any known universe? Why
don't we figure out what would happen if every business called you?

>> So why are
>> you identifying me or Scott or others here as the enemy? Just because
>> we don't support those same ineffective arguments?
>
> Because you continue to argue in favor of theft of services, violating
> ISP terms of service and in favor of something the overwhelming
> majority of the public is against.

And you continue to misrepresent the words of others. It's gotten really
old. Not only have I not argued in favor of those things, but I have said
the opposite. Keep fighting those straw men...

>> But it does not control business-to-business communication without
>> personal info about an individual nor does it in any way affect use
>> of publicly available info (such as what is published on a public web
>> page like this one). It does not control any info which would qualify
>> as "business card info".
>
> I find no pages in Google for the term "business card info" and
> PIPEDA. Where did you find that term?

Try "BC PIPA" and "Business card".

http://aabc.bc.ca/aabc/newsletter/14...nt_happen.htm:
"What is "Personal Information?" It is any information about an
"identifiable individual," but does not include the information found on
a business card name, job title, business address, or work phone
number. It includes home phone number and address, S.I.N. number, and
birth date. It includes the contents of a personnel file, employment
history, any medical information, age and education, financial
information, credit card information, and salary. It includes
photographs; this may affect what we put up on (or perhaps take down
from!) our web sites."

Also http://www.aps-group.com/pdf/PrivacyandSecurity-
PracticalStrategies.pdf ...try slide 17.

McWebber, there is no point in continuing this. Aside from your
misrepresenting the words and positions of others, you simply keep
repeating your theft mantra over and over like that will somehow prove
something. Good luck with that in the future...I hope it brings you much
happiness.

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

"George Demmer" <nwsgrps@realityNOSPAMassociates.com> wrote in message
news:cjl94j0oqc@enews3.newsguy.com...
>
> > They want an
> > advertiser to have their permission before sending ads. Why is that
> > concept so difficult for advertisers to grasp?
>
> You're kidding again, right? Perhaps the fact that advertising by
definition
> involves "giving notice" or "making known" could offer a hint. You do
> understand that advertising is generally delivered without asking
permission,
> right?

You're kidding, right? You don't understand we're talking about a form of
advertising that has a direct cost to the recipient, unlike all other forms
of advertising except junk faxes.

>
> > Did you ever stop and
> > do the math on what would happen if every small business decided to
> > just send you one email per year?
>
> Why? Do you really think this is likely to happen in any known universe?

Why wouldn't it? Even if 10% of the businesses decided to send you UCE you
would be getting thousands of messages you don't want.

> Why
> don't we figure out what would happen if every business called you?

Obviously the costs to those businesses prevent that from happening, unlike
with email where they can contact millions of people with the push of a
button. That is why there is no comparison with other forms of advertising.
They all scale and the inherant costs to the businesses prevent the cost
shifting that is involved in spam.

>
> >> So why are
> >> you identifying me or Scott or others here as the enemy? Just because
> >> we don't support those same ineffective arguments?
> >
> > Because you continue to argue in favor of theft of services, violating
> > ISP terms of service and in favor of something the overwhelming
> > majority of the public is against.
>
> And you continue to misrepresent the words of others. It's gotten really
> old. Not only have I not argued in favor of those things, but I have said
> the opposite. Keep fighting those straw men...

You have? You keep trying to compare spam, (which has a direct cost to the
recipient like a junk fax or collect telephone call), to other forms of
advertising where the delivery costs limit the advertiser. The other
moderator stated he has encouraged his clients to use spam.

>
> >> But it does not control business-to-business communication without
> >> personal info about an individual nor does it in any way affect use
> >> of publicly available info (such as what is published on a public web
> >> page like this one). It does not control any info which would qualify
> >> as "business card info".
> >
> > I find no pages in Google for the term "business card info" and
> > PIPEDA. Where did you find that term?
>
> Try "BC PIPA" and "Business card".
>
> http://aabc.bc.ca/aabc/newsletter/14...nt_happen.htm:
> "What is "Personal Information?" It is any information about an
> "identifiable individual," but does not include the information found on
> a business card name, job title, business address, or work phone
> number. It includes home phone number and address, S.I.N. number, and
> birth date. It includes the contents of a personnel file, employment
> history, any medical information, age and education, financial
> information, credit card information, and salary. It includes
> photographs; this may affect what we put up on (or perhaps take down
> from!) our web sites."

Read about where and how they are allowed to collect that information.

>
> McWebber, there is no point in continuing this. Aside from your
> misrepresenting the words and positions of others, you simply keep
> repeating your theft mantra over and over like that will somehow prove
> something. Good luck with that in the future...I hope it brings you much
> happiness.

The "theft mantra" as you attempt to dismiss it, has been proven in court.

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

"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:cjmu4802qe9@enews3.newsguy.com:

> "George Demmer" <nwsgrps@realityNOSPAMassociates.com> wrote in message
> news:cjl94j0oqc@enews3.newsguy.com...
>>
>> McWebber, there is no point in continuing this. Aside from your
>> misrepresenting the words and positions of others, you simply keep
>> repeating your theft mantra over and over like that will somehow
>> prove something. Good luck with that in the future...I hope it brings
>> you much happiness.
>
> The "theft mantra" as you attempt to dismiss it, has been proven in
> court.

And, have you noticed a dramatic reduction in the amount of spam? Because I
haven't. And that is the point you absolutely and painfully insist on
missing.

Maybe it's time to consider a second track instead of continuing to beat a
dead horse?

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

"McWebber" <mcwebber@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:cjmu4802qe9@enews3.newsguy.com...
>
> "George Demmer" <nwsgrps@realityNOSPAMassociates.com> wrote in message
> news:cjl94j0oqc@enews3.newsguy.com...
>>
>> > They want an
>> > advertiser to have their permission before sending ads. Why is that
>> > concept so difficult for advertisers to grasp?
>>
>> You're kidding again, right? Perhaps the fact that advertising by
> definition
>> involves "giving notice" or "making known" could offer a hint. You do
>> understand that advertising is generally delivered without asking
> permission,
>> right?

McWebber,

This argument has gone on too long, too far. It is one thing to dislike spam
and not support those who send it. It is another thing to spend a
disproportionate amount of your time fighting against it.

The facts are this: the overwhelming majority of people don't like spam.
Yes, it does, it annoys most people to some degree.

Spam does cost the recipient, but it doesn't cost much. The cost is
negligible when compared to the cost of the electricity to run a TV set, or
when compared to the value of the amount of property that a mailbox takes
up, (especially here in Southern California). I think you'd have a hard time
showing that spam costs me more than one or two bucks a year on my cable
internet bill. Is it right that I must pay a few extra bucks to my ISP so
that they can maintain their spam filters? I am happy to pay that money to
them so that they can continue to do whatever they need to do, and buy
whatever software they have to buy, in order to keep their servers and their
service up to snuff, as they have continually and consistently done.

> You're kidding, right? You don't understand we're talking about a form of
> advertising that has a direct cost to the recipient, unlike all other
> forms
> of advertising except junk faxes.

That's bull. Compare the cost of spam to that of junk mail. You paid for
your mailbox. The property the box is on costs money and there are property
taxes to deal with, too. Do you throw out your junk mail? If so, gee, you
pay somebody to pick up your trash, right? Hell, it takes you time to sort
through the junk mail and find your bills, doesn't it? Honestly, does it
take you longer to sort through your junk mail than it does to delete your
spam? (Assuming you just see it and delete like most people.) Now, factor in
the environmental impact of physical junk mail, using your own numbers, and
lets talk about the cost.

Of course, whenever you buy *any* product, anywhere, any time, you are
paying for all those reams of junk mail -- all those dead trees -- that your
grocery store mailed out, or your mechanic, or whoever.

I'm pretty sure that, penny for penny, junk mail costs me a hell of a lot
more than spam. I would rather see ten times as much spam come through on my
computer (and straight into the trash can), and pay the indirect costs of
that, then to have to pay *significantly* more for all the paper I get in
the mail.


>> > Did you ever stop and
>> > do the math on what would happen if every small business decided to
>> > just send you one email per year?
>>
>> Why? Do you really think this is likely to happen in any known universe?
>
> Why wouldn't it? Even if 10% of the businesses decided to send you UCE you
> would be getting thousands of messages you don't want.

On what do you base these remarks? What if 10% of all businesses mailed you
a piece of junk mail? You'd have to rent a much bigger house.

>> Why
>> don't we figure out what would happen if every business called you?
>
> Obviously the costs to those businesses prevent that from happening,
> unlike
> with email where they can contact millions of people with the push of a
> button. That is why there is no comparison with other forms of
> advertising.
> They all scale and the inherant costs to the businesses prevent the cost
> shifting that is involved in spam.

There are costs associated with both sides of all forms of advertising. I
think that, if you take everything into consideration, the spam you receive
costs you less than the ads you see on TV, read in the paper, see on
billboards, or receive in the mail.

>> >> So why are
>> >> you identifying me or Scott or others here as the enemy? Just because
>> >> we don't support those same ineffective arguments?
>> >
>> > Because you continue to argue in favor of theft of services, violating
>> > ISP terms of service and in favor of something the overwhelming
>> > majority of the public is against.
>>
>> And you continue to misrepresent the words of others. It's gotten really
>> old. Not only have I not argued in favor of those things, but I have said
>> the opposite. Keep fighting those straw men...
>
> You have? You keep trying to compare spam, (which has a direct cost to the
> recipient like a junk fax or collect telephone call), to other forms of
> advertising where the delivery costs limit the advertiser.

I hope that, by now, you can see that's simply not true.

> The other
> moderator stated he has encouraged his clients to use spam.

That is an outright lie. You took a sentence that somebody wrote, took words
out of it, changed the meaning, and have carried on this ridiculous fib
through several of your emails. Even now, that your little trick was exposed
higher up in this thread, you continue to perpetuate this untruth. Why? You
know, IIRC, another huge portion of your argument has been regarding the
misuse of some postal form. As I recall, it is your suggestion that if
somebody doesn't want grocery coupons, for example, that they ought to
report their neighborhood grocer as a purveyor of perversion (or some such
thing).

>
> The "theft mantra" as you attempt to dismiss it, has been proven in court.

My suggestion is this: forget about the penny anty spam stuff. Just delete
the crap and move on with your life. There are some things you can't change,
and better things to do with your time.

Please note: I am really not trying to defend spam. I am just hoping to see
an end to this thread, sometime soon.

As such, I have an offer to make. Lets let one of us have the famous "last
word" in this argument. I'll leave the decision of who it is up to you. If
you want the last word, go for it, and I'll not respond. Otherwise, if you
think that you've already made a good enough argument, then let this be the
end of it.

I have no problem leaving this whole thing alone and agreeing to the one
point, only, that you and I do not agree.

Mike