RE: Let's try this again (OT)

I started this whole spam discussion thing off when I got yet another 
identical message from jwhitfield at ejobs.com offering me an unspecified 
job for an unnamed company if only I phoned her in the USA.

In the fuss that resulted, MS Whitfield has been stunned it seems to me, by 
what she sees as an attack on her.  She's sent me a few letters in her 
defence, and (you gotta admire her for this) endeavouring to convince me to 
do some business with her.

I'm convinced that Ms Whitfield genuinely wants to do business, and doesnt 
intend that her messages be seen as offensive in any way.  So in that 
respect, while her messages have many of the characteristics of spam, we 
ought not to be too harsh on her.

So I've altered my attitude to her and her company.   The company's come up 
a little in my estimation and Ms Whitfield has come up a whole lot in my 
estimation.  In fact you'd have to say I'm an admirer of the way she has 
addressed this matter head on instead of skulking off into the ether never 
to be seen again.

But I still don't respond well to impersonal, boilerplate messages and 
reckon Ms Whitfield would be better served addressing specific individuals 
with specific opportunities, rather than her present approach of "I have 
lots of opportunities and one is bound to be what you need."

Anyway, she has to decide for herself how to run her business and I'm no 
expert in the meat-market business except to have been a candidate a few 
times in my career.

But don't let any other spammer get the idea I'm soft on spam - I'll attack 
with whatever resources I can muster.

Again, I invite the listers here to voice an opinion in our anti-spam 
campaign at Choice  http://www.choice.com.au/forums/forums.exe

Cheers,
Mike Kear
AFP Web Development
Webmaster,  Choice Online www.choice.com.au


>From: "Martin T. Hugo" <martyh(at)cinci.rr.com>
>Reply-To: <martyh(at)cinci.rr.com>
>To: "Dennis Lapcewich" <Dennis.Lapcewich(at)unisa.edu.au>,        
><hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org>
>CC: <jwhitfield(at)ejobs.com>, "'Villano, Paul'" 
><VillanoP(at)usachcs-emh1.army.mil>
>Subject: RE: Let's try this again (OT)
>Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 08:19:38 -0400
>
>Well said Dennis!
>
>As an aside, paul says, "unsolicited e-mail is spam", I don't believe it's
>as simple as that.  If that were the definition then every e-mail that is
>not a response to my original e-mail would also be spam.  Genuine e-mail
>with legitimate offers/comments/questions are not, in my opinion, spam.
>spam, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, well OK then, the
>receiver.  If you are interested in it, it's information, if you're not,
>it's spam.
>
>This statement, of course, does not apply to the get slim/get rich/get
>everything garbage which obviously IS spam!
>
>Marty
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org
>[mailto:owner-hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org]On Behalf Of Dennis Lapcewich
>Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 9:36 PM
>To: hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org
>Cc: jwhitfield(at)ejobs.com; 'Villano, Paul'
>Subject: RE: Let's try this again
>
>
> > Ms. Whitfield still doesn't seem to "get it."  Unsolicited e-mail is 
>spam.
> > It is, at best, annoying and at worst illegal (in some states).  No 
>matter
> > how legitimate you feel this offer is, it's not legitimate if done over
> > illegitimate channels.  No matter how sincere your intentions, one can 
>be
> > sincerely stupid.  Sincerity is not a virtue if one persists
> > in stupid, offensive behavior...sincerely, of course.
> >
> > Speaking of security, I must also advise you that I have seen the 
>results
>of
> > spammers taken to task on other lists.  Those with the expertise who 
>were
> > offended by their spam took it upon themselves to "return fire", sending
> > retaliatory spam, tracing the employment and personal information of the
> > spammer, and generally doing some very nasty stuff.  The spammer's
>personal
> > information was posted onlne.  By offending experts in the field you are
> > opening yourself up to the furor of those who you "sincerely" offend.
> >
> > Paul
> > -- to the glory of GOD and the greater good
> >
>
>-- snip --
>
>Paul,
>
>I believe you are more than a bit harsh in your comments, especially when
>you
>attached them to an apology by Julie.  In fact, downright rude.  
>Considering
>Julie took it upon herself to offer a public apology because of her
>indiscretion and not following the rules of etiquette, I believe your
>comments
>are out of order.  In fact, she also did something *very* few "spammers"
>ever
>do, she apologized.
>
>Considering this is an opt-in "professional" list, if you want to get
>pedantic,
>by definition you did not receive spam from her; she spammed a list you 
>have
>chosen to belong on your own accord.  If there is any hand-slapping to be
>done,
>it should come from a list guide who I believe would have already done so
>privately.  Quietly.  Professionally.  Without threat or innuendo of the
>same.
>
>Lest you consider my comments along the lines of "who died and made you
>king?,"
>I am fallible just like any other mortal.  At the least, I don't add a sig
>line
>to my email that professes acceptance, tolerance, and forgiveness, while 
>the
>bulk of your words speak of another.
>
>Dennis
>

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA