🚀 go-pugleaf

Sandra D.Helbig wrote:
> 
> 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.

This is all quite interesting but, it doesn't belong in a newsgroup 
titled "PERSONALS"