From: Daniel Miskell <DMiskell@envirolink.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 20:55:35 +0800
To: rwright@adnetsol.com
Subject: Re: Spamming (Good or Bad?)
Message-ID: <199608210740.DAA28118@envirolink.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Ross Wright writes:
>On Or About 20 Aug 96, 16:23, Jim Gillogly wrote:
>> 
>> Vipul Ved Prakash <vipul@pobox.com> writes:
>> >I don't know if there has been much discussion on the ethics of
>> >spamming here? Is spamming free speech? 
>> 
>
>> I oppose spamming because it's rude and inefficient, lowering the
>> S/N everywhere it happens.  Market droids
>
>Market Droids????  As a salesman I take offence at this slur.

Well, look at it from the consumer point of view.  We log on, and see what is
eccentially a junk-email, written as a form letter, sitting in our box.  It's
gotten to the point were I have barely enough patience to skim my junk before
I delete it, just to be fair.  So, to most of it, it seems quite droidlike.  
If you want people referring to it in a more respectable manner, earn more
respect.  Do a more personalized canvass, or find better ways to advertise,
other than junk email.  You'll piss less people off, and get more respect.

>> favor it because it's
>> cheap, and no matter how many people they piss off bigtime, they
>> make some sales.
>
>Even make sales to people who are pissed off at first...

That doesn't make it right, in my opinion.  It just makes it worse, because
salesmen will not consider how annoying their canvass is to people before 
sending it out, and more and more people get pissed.  Selling is no 
justification, the ends do not justify the means.  People are still angered.
After all, you are not counting how many pissed off people you do NOT sell to.

Greetings from $hell,
Daniel.