Thread View: misc.rural
3 messages
3 total messages
Started by Sandra D.Helbig
Tue, 26 Nov 1996 00:00
DID YOU KNOW...how to squelch Mr. Spalthoff
Author: Sandra D.Helbig
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 00:00
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 00:00
52 lines
3905 bytes
3905 bytes
I getting a bit bored by all of this, so I probably won't post anything else. Here are my parting words on the subject. You guys who post rabid anti-spam materials would have done well in old Salem during the witch hunts and during the McCarthy era. Your minds are made up and I only confuse you with the facts. You are NOT freedom fighters. You are wannabee totalitarian despots. I just want the people who you are trying to whip up into an irrational frenzy to understand that the rabid noisy voices are not the voices of unanimity and certainly not of reason. The people behind the rabid voices have their own reasons for trying to whip you into a frenzy and mislead you to believe that all spammers are scammers. Spam does not mean Scam. They sound alike. The words look a little a like, but they have diferent meanings. Okay? Despite what you claim, all commercial presences on the web are not scams. Most are legitimate businesses. Some of scams. Pyramid schemes existed long before there were any computers. So did chain letters. Yet no one ever suggested that a store be shut down because somebody sold a "Rolex" watch on the street in front of it for 5 bucks. Yet the rapid voices suggest the internet equivalent. All people who advertise (and/or spam) are not out to cheat and defraud. There are those everywhere that will cheat and steal, but that does not make every advertiser who posts to the newsgroups or sends out email a criminal. The potential for fraud is not justification to censor the commercial speech of all. Thus the element which insists that all spammers are scammers and therefore all commercial activity should be driven out by fair means or foul (with a joyous emphasis on the foul) want to dictate what others should do and penalize those who won't obey them. They want to take away my freedom. They want to take away everyone else's freedom. They want obedience - or else. Now, no one has to listen to me, but if these fellows get their way, everyone will have to listen to them and obey. They will control what can been seen and what cannot. They will control what can be posted to usenet and what cannot. They will decide what can be transmitted and received as email. And those who do not conform will have to seriously consider the penalty they will seek to inflict. Not a pretty picture, is it? It never has been, not since long before the witch trials. And it was said that the Telecommunications Act infringed on freedoms. It has nothing on these guys. End of subject. Sandra D. Helbig lawpage@access.digex.net
Re: DID YOU KNOW...how to squelch Mr. Spalthoff
Author: Jeff Inman
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 00:00
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 00:00
27 lines
2354 bytes
2354 bytes
I haven't been following this thread either, but ... helbig@ix.netcom.com(Sandra D.Helbig) writes: >Thus the element which insists that all spammers are scammers and >therefore all commercial activity should be driven out by fair means or >foul (with a joyous emphasis on the foul) want to dictate what others >should do and penalize those who won't obey them. I think they (The Element) just don't want the size XX footprints of greedy advertizers all over their internet. >They want to take >away my freedom. They want to take away everyone else's freedom. They >want obedience - or else. Now I know why I was ignoring this thread. Are you seriously expecting anyone to see hostility to advertising -- hostility to "crass commercialism", as they say -- as a suppression of your friggin freedoms? Are you going to insist that we all have the right to cover every bit of available space with neon signs? Commercialism is here to stay, but it's nice to see it shuffle and scrape a bit, when it wants my attention. Let them take out newspaper ads.
Re: DID YOU KNOW...how to squelch Mr. Spalthoff
Author: speed
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 00:00
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 00:00
30 lines
2642 bytes
2642 bytes
Jeff Inman wrote: > > I haven't been following this thread either, but ... > > helbig@ix.netcom.com(Sandra D.Helbig) writes: > > >Thus the element which insists that all spammers are scammers and > >therefore all commercial activity should be driven out by fair means or > >foul (with a joyous emphasis on the foul) want to dictate what others > >should do and penalize those who won't obey them. > > I think they (The Element) just don't want the size XX footprints of > greedy advertizers all over their internet. > > >They want to take > >away my freedom. They want to take away everyone else's freedom. They > >want obedience - or else. > > Now I know why I was ignoring this thread. Are you seriously > expecting anyone to see hostility to advertising -- hostility to > "crass commercialism", as they say -- as a suppression of your friggin > freedoms? Are you going to insist that we all have the right to cover > every bit of available space with neon signs? > > Commercialism is here to stay, but it's nice to see it shuffle and > scrape a bit, when it wants my attention. > > Let them take out newspaper ads.i know that is not the place or time, but, can anybody tell me where i can find a newsgroup for stocks?
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads