🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <davidg.767499648@access1> davidg@access1.digex.net (David P. Geller) writes:

>Count me as one long time Internet user who couldn't give a **k about the
>current advertising debate going on. Far too much attention has been paid
>to the subject. It's obvious this will do only one thing - encourage
>continued exploration of Internet advertising. Isn't it easier to use your
>brain and skip the articles you don't think will benefit you? Ever hear of
>book burning? Ever complain about movie ratings when you were a kid. 
>Don't like net advertising? Change the channel. 

>David

Hey David,

What is this?  How does it follow that this recent debate (which you are the 
only one on the other side of) will "encourage continued exploration of 
Internet advertising"????  I don't understand your logic.

Book burning and movie ratings don't have anything to do with this.

Every time I changed the channel (newsgroup), I was innudated with the same 
Junk mail.  If all businesses posted to EVERY NEWSGROUP, we couldn't see 
through all the junk posts for the actual posts that belonged in those groups!
Think about that for a second.

Those who pays for Internet access (all of us in some way do) are hurt my 
USENET junk mail to EVERY NEWSGROUP.  The costs incurred by the providers 
in the form of faster nets for all this junk and larger disks will just be 
passed on to the service buyer.  

BTW,  I wonder how many of thos 30,000 returned email messages were flames and 
bounced copies of the Laywer-Scum's post?  Quite a few, I'll wager.

Pete