🚀 go-pugleaf

Dear Owner,

Whatever happened to my response to Dave, stating, among other things,
that Lucent, was, until a few short weeks ago, part of AT&T and still
is an integral part of the AT&T business web?

I do not like secrets, like Mr. Spalthoff being a Lucent (formerly
known as AT&T Bell Labs) employee while he is mounting attacks on
competitors of AT&T.   

Mr. Spalthoff knew, as I know, that all one has to do is just mention
the word "spam" to get people to react exactly as he wanted them to
react.

The truth to be told, I have not spammed any newsgroup with bankruptcy
ads.  If you would read it you would see that I was seeking people to
subscribe to a monthly newsletter on various legal issues.  Many have
subscribed.  Other people on the web are charging big bucks for the
information that has been (and will in the future be) in my Newsletter
for free. Further, many people who are in financial trouble are scammed
because they are desperate and a little free knowledge might assist
them.

My Newsletter is so informative that people have asked permission to
include it in their own Newsletters.  So long as it is not changed and
I am acknowledged as the author, my Newsletters, as far as I am
concerned, are public domain.  I was unaware that anyone had actually
included my Newsletter in another Newsletter.  Thank you for letting me
know.

(I get a lot of spam and read it because it provides me with
information.  I also reserve the right to spam if I think it
appropriate.  I know that this be HERESY, but doesn't anybody who reads
newsgroups challenge the precepts of orthodoxy?  I thought you guys
were supposed to be so independent minded and here you are jumping to
gospel preached by a corporate employee!)

Dear Owner, if you will let me know your email address, I will send you
a copy (no I won't subscribe you).  You will see that there is no dark
evil content that you think exists.

OK, assuming for the sake of argument that I am a bad evil person
(without, of course, admitting it to be correct). (I once told an
attorney he was really a nice guy and he said "Sshh, you'll ruin my
reputation.) Now, STOP EMOTING.  START THINKING.

Why don't you think about Mr. Spalthoff scamming everybody on the issue
of "spam," when he did not reveal that his employer engaged in
universal "spamming" and it is a competitor of the various internet
provider that Spalthoff attacked? Why don't you at least think about
the consequences of censorship which you are advocating?  What happens
after that? THINK!

Why does no one respond to that?

Sandra D. Helbig
lawpage@access.digex.net


Article: 5663
Newsgroups:
misc.rural,ba.general,biz.marketplace.international,biz.marketplace.ser
ices.non-computer,biz.misc,houston.personals,la.personals,nj.misc,nv.pe
sonals,nyc.general,nyc.personals,oh.general,ok.general,pa.general
,rec.arts.misc,rec.misc,soc.men,soc.women,soc.misc,rec.arts.books,marke
plac
e,rec.arts.books
From: majordomo-owner
Subject: Re: DID YOU KNOW...how to squelch Mr. Spalthoff
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 21:12:10 GMT

Sandra D.Helbig (helbig@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Come off it.  Commercial endeavors pay the bills.  Spamming pays your
: salary.  Spam is good.  Spam is great. The vast majority of people on
: the web are engaged in for profit endeavors.

What a bunch of self-serving horseshit.  The web doesn't invade my
mailbox and my mailing lists, counselor, nor does it force me to pay
for transmission of your cheezy ad copy.  Your spam doesn't pay my
bills.
What your spam does is annoy me and cost me time and effort purging
your obnoxious, unwanted and irrelevant bankruptcy ads from a
mailing list bridged to one of the regional newsgroups you spam, one
which was created and is chartered "NONCOMMERCIAL -- NO ADVERTISING!",
as are most of the newsgroups you abuse.  Your spam has cost me time
and money building and maintaining SMTP and mailing list firewalls
to keep you and your ilk off my private network where you are
definitely
not welcome.  In my book, you are no better than thieves who break
into computers in order to abuse them, except I have some measure
of respect for the skills of talented hackers, which none of you
are.  You're just shameless opportunists -- hypocrits looking for a
free ride at everyone else's expense.

Your spam benefits you and you alone, Ms. Helbig, although one has
to wonder about how much any of you spammers actually benefit from
it.  I can't imagine the gullible nose-pickers who must respond to
such an amateur form of advertising.  OTOH, I have no such doubts
about the ethics and quality of service I could expect to find with
someone who feels it's his or her right to arrogantly ignore
long-standing Usenet rules of use and annoy so many people in such
inappropriate forums.

: Where do you get the idea
: that a customer who pays an internet provider is subject to
censorship
: by that internet provider?

And where do you get the idea that an ISP can't set rules and
standards of conduct for its customers which it can enforce by
terminating the contract with that customer?  You're supposedly
a lawyer; I presume you know about contracts.

As for your AT&T metaphor, nice try but no cigar.  Usenet spamming
isn't
telephone solicitation.  It's an electronically propogated form of
junkmail advertising, making it more like unsolicited fax advertising
which,
as you know, is quite illegal.