🚀 go-pugleaf

Alan DeKok wrote:

> In article <35182D39.E0C498B8@hotmail.com>, Buzz  <purphaze@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Alan DeKok wrote:
> >>
> >>   These people are trying to break and enter.  I don't care if it's my
> >> house or my computer, it's should be a criminal for either.
> >
> > When you access the internet you are knowingly opening yourself upto
> > these types of abuses.
>
>   Not to be rude, but you're a complete idiot.
>
>   My HOUSE is on the street 24/7.  My COMPUTER is on the net 24/7.
> What the hell is the difference?  If someone abuses either one, it
> should be against the law.  If someone abuses either one, I get mad,
> and do what I can to stop it.

If you thought you were guaranteed any type of privacy on the internet,then YOUR
the complete idiot. What the hell were you expecting? Your
own little private world?

>
>
> > If you run out to the street naked, don't
> > blame the police for arresting you. You did it knowingly.
>
>   Yup, you're an idiot.  This is a retarded analogy.

And your rude. When your on the net, your exposed, like it or not.You connect
knowing full well that many others are connected and
that some may have the resources or know-how to "send you spam".
What part of this is escaping you?

IF YOUR ON THE NET THEN YOU ARE SUBJECT TO
SPAM.

>
>
>   Anyone who has a computer open raw to the net is obviously going to
> have problems, but that WASN'T the issue here.
>
> > I am also
> > connected via LAN, 24 hrs, 7 days. I see very little spam. I post
> > all over with my hotmail address, newgroups, webpages, etc...yet I
> > see minimal spam, lucky I guess.
>
>   Well, golly gee, ma!  You're so smart the rest of us look like losers!
>

What kind of an immature reply is this? I simply stated that I as wellhave a 24-7
connection, but receive minimal spam.
Your acting like a child.

> >If they are not breaking the law, yet they put people out of business
> >and crash machines all over the world, then the law should be changed.
> >Should that not be the target of everyone's efforts?. As with almost
> >everything, the Government will create laws against spam if it is truly
> >hurting the average business joe. (eventually)
>
>   Oh yes, let's go stick our heads up our ass until the Government in
> it's benighted wisdom Saves Us!
>
>   In the meantime, let's ignore the problem!  After all, if Buzz
> doesn't understand it, it can't be all THAT bad!

You know, "Buzz" is trying to understand it, and so far all I have"understood" is
that many spammers that have attacked companies
and caused great problems have been sued for it. When I ask
for names of companies that have been crippled by this, I
get names of companies that have successfully sued them.
and, yes I have some faith in our Government. If you don't
then fine. You still have yet to post an effective way for the
average internet user, who doesn't get much spam, to help
fight spam. So far you've just ranted at me cause I said that
deforestation was worse in my eyes. Now your attacking
me personally for that staement.

>
>
> >>   Junk faxes were legal for a while, until weight of public opinion
> >> forced lawmakers to change that.
> >
> >As far as I thought, the reason for advertiser's fax's being banned was
> >because the thermal paper being used was expensive and needed
> >to be manually replaced.
>
>   No, it was because the *recipient* was being made to pay for
> advertising...  As people have repeatedly tried to hammer through your
> thick skull.

More insults....sheesh! You need to learn respect for others..Sorry if I don't
measure up to your standards on this public
forum.

>
>
> >>   Spam exists, therefore it crashes servers.  It's large volumes of
> >> unwanted crap.
> >
> > Hey, an opinion is an opinion. The only thing it IS,.....is
> > mine!
>
>   It's an uninformed opinion, phrased in a condescending and insulting
> way.  (Unlike mine, which are *informed* opinions, phrased in a
> condescending and insulting way.)

I have read my previous post and find no insults directed at anyone.Uniformed, may
be, but not insulting. The fact that I stated the opinion
was mine, should allow me some room.

>
>
>   If you can't take what you dish out, buddy, go cry to Mama.
>

"go cry to mama"? What is it that you think I cannot take?

> > Anyway, no one has given a single example of a major crisis
> > caused by spam. I can give many examples of crisis caused by
> > deforestation...Like the El Salvador Rain forest, Quote from
> > Recovery of Environment:
>
>   Like 30-60% of company resources wasted on someone else's CRAP isn't
> a crisis?  What drugs are you on?

Like deforestation isn't a crisis?, that's all I implied, that it is a crisismore
relevant to me than spam. Where do you find a problem with
that statement. Whether you agree or not. It's a valid statement that
I still stand behind.

>
>
> > [ blah blah forest crap snipped ]
>
>   Yeah, whatever.  My heart bleeds.  If those people had brains to
> plant trees in the first place, they wouldn't have a problem!  Even
> so, all they've got to do is run to Big Mama Government, and She'll
> solve the problem!
>
>   ($0.02 says you won't notice the parody of your own opinion...)

This is your idea on how to resolve the problem? They should of plantedmore tree's?
Funny how the top world scientists and ecologist's haven't
figured that one out as well as you have. I can see you spent some time
researching your answer.

>
>
> > Deforestation is a real crisis. I ask again if anyone could
> > postsomething real, with real numbers, and real people to inform me
> > (with more than YOUR opinion) on the devastation spam causes. Until
> > such a time, then I perceive your response as "uniformed" also.
>
>   '30-60%' aren't real numbers?  Go fly back to never-never land.
> They ain't got the pills you need here.

30%-60% of what? computer resources, money, time?Seems that they still make money
or they would'nt do it.
The companies that you or Chris have mentioned are
still in business and making money, or have sued the
spammer for "substancial" amounts.

What I'm more afraid of is 30-60% loss of an un-renewable
resource. Rain forest's don't bounch back in a week or two,
and no amount of money will replace them immediatly.



>   I bet YOU can't give me real numbers on the number of trees lost to
> deforestation, the cumulative health cost, replacement cost,
> environmental cost. etc.  Round figures like percentages aren't "real
> numbers", I want REAL NUMBERS like you want.
>
>

Wanna bet? I can give you a whole lot more than what has beenpresented by you. I
have LOTS more where this came from.


Originally, tropical forests in Asia, Africa, and Latin America covered about
fifteen million square km. of land area, or about 12 percent of the earth's land
surface. Today, tropical forest cover has shrunk to half that, or 7.5 million
square km.
Moreover, the rate of destruction of tropical forest is increasing. As late as
1979, deforestation occurred on "only" 75,000 square km. per year. By 1991, the
annual amount of tropical deforestation had risen to between 130,000 and 140,000
square km. i.e., the rate increased by about 80 percent in just twelve years. Put
another way, the rate of tropical deforestation rose  from less than 1 percent of
forest area per year in 1979 to nearly 2 percent of forest area by 1991. And in
many areas, the rate of tropical deforestation was much higher � as high as 12
percent per year in some countries of West Africa.
Why should we worry about tropical deforestation? Sensible people should be
concerned for three basic reasons. First, an intact tropical forest offers a very
wide range of highly valuable services. To illustrate, the forest serves important
watershed and climate control functions, especially in regulation of rainfall. The
forest absorbs albedo (reflectivity of the sun's rays) from the sun, and stores a
sizable share of the world's carbon. Second, the tropical forest is the most
important source of biodiversity on earth: the moist tropical forest contains at
least 50 percent of all the earth's species. Third, undisturbed tropical forests
furnish
essential foods, clothing, and implements for indigenous forest people.
Deforestation threatens all these services.Also, here is a site to tell what is
being implemented.

http://www.mct.gov.br/GABIN/CPMG/CLIMATE/PROGRAMA/ingl/policy3.htm

Here is a site for good information and links on world wide deforestation.

http://www.as.wvu.edu/~swarshau/96/eng2/jsteven/jsper.html

It would be bad netiquette to post a 4000 line message, so I
hope you will  accept the above links as they contain the numbers
you wanted.

> >>   Tell everyone.  Tell your ISP.  Hotmail is a *bad* source of
> >> spammers.  Tell your politicians.
>

> >There has got to be a more effective way then just
> >telling these people, what little information that
> >has been supplied here. Give me something to
> >work with. Where's the beef?
>
>   Apparently between your ears, 'cause there ain't much brain there.

As far as I'm concerned, you have nothing but insult, after insult
as for lack of anything better to say. Better left unsaid.

>
>
>   Let me be pedantic: Someone steals MY resources for THEIR crap.  I
> don't care WHAT kind of resources they steal from me.  It's still
> THEFT.  ('cause the key word is "steal", not "resources".  Get it?)
>
>   Alan DeKok.
> (A nice rant is a therapeutic thing.  AAhhh...)

I still feel that the same goes for paper products. The
only difference seem to be the paper ad's paid for the
paper and spammers didn't pay for the server's hard drive.
I still fear the paper & forest dilemma more than spam.
I'm sure there will plenty of hard disk space in the future,
but I doubt the same will hold true for our forest's.
If  you don't agree with that, so be it.

BTW, Get your therapy by ranting on someone else next
time will ya?

Buzz
Ottawa