🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

3 total messages Started by Sandra D.Helbig Tue, 26 Nov 1996 00:00
DID YOU KNOW...how to squelch Mr. Spalthoff
#1524
Author: Sandra D.Helbig
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 00:00
52 lines
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
#1521
Author: Jeff Inman
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 00:00
27 lines
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
#1517
Author: speed
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 1996 00:00
30 lines
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