🚀 go-pugleaf

<most of the "personals" crossposting snipped - I'm married, thank you very 
much>

In article <577k4b$3vp@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>, 
helbig@ix.netcom.com(Sandra D.Helbig) wrote:
>
>The point for all that missed it was the irony and hypocrisy of an
>employee of AT&T objecting to any type of advertising activities.

You have a point here.  If I so strongly object to bad advertising practices, 
is that in conflict with how my employer does business?

But is it relevant?

Does everyone working RJR advocate smoking?  Do I advocate downsizing because 
that's what AT&T does?

I have taken some of your observations to heart.  I've changed the wording 
on my Unsolicited Email page.  I will not pass judgement (eg using the word 
"shame") on those who take part in the practice.  I leave that as an exercise 
for the student.  This should satisfy most of my critics.

>And don't you think Mr. Spalthoff should have revealed his relationship
>with a competitor of the internet providers he was challenging?

I've never hidden my relationship with AT&T.  I've never changed my return 
address or name in the header of my messages.  This probably contributes to 
the volume of Unsolicited Email I receive, but I feel strongly that if I'm 
going to make statements, people should know where they're coming from.  I do 
not give any credence to people who try to make arguments, but hide behind an 
alias.

BTW Why would a lawyer be suggesting that I be "squelched?"  Wouldn't that be 
a violation of my first amendment rights?

--Tom

Thomas G. Spalthoff                 "Moderation seems to be the key"
tgs@planet.ho.att.com                                    J. Buffett