🚀 go-pugleaf

>Myself, I am 100% in favour of electronic junk mail replacing the
>vast gobs of dead trees that land in my physical mailbox every day.

Ever think about all the petroleum being burned to power all the computers
that will echo this junk e-mail??? It may well do more damage to the
environment than the one tree that will provide all that paper for one mailing.

Do you enjoy receiving solicitation by phone? This does not harm any trees
(other than the polution by burning of petroleum). Think about what you
object to, and for what reasons.

Through the US postal system, the junk mailer will be PAYING for his mailing.
Using the Internet by definition, he will not be paying for distribution.
Which is better? Killing trees (therebye increasing atmospheric CO2) or
burning petroleum (or should I say fossil fuels - like coal) increasing
sulphur dioxide, CO, AND CO2 emmissions?

We do not have to pay the US postal service to receive mail. Yet, we small
systems owners using UUCP or even direct connections to the Internet (or uunet)
have to pay for the service. We are paying above and beyond what we would
normally pay just to receive junk e-mail.

BTW, I did not receive any junk e-mail, but would be EXTREMELY pissed-off
if I did!

-- 
Kilowatt Computing					Arthur A. Krewat
51 Winnecomac Ave.				uunet!admiral!kilowatt!krewat
Deer Park, NY 11729					(516) 586-4743
(516) 253-2805						Consensys SVR4