From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 20:40:07 -0800 (PST)
To: Pete Capelli <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: Excerpt on SPAM from Edupage, 11 February 1997
Message-ID: <199702150439.UAA04787@mail.pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 10:12 AM 2/13/97 -0500, Pete Capelli wrote:
>jim bell wrote:
>> 
>> At 03:25 PM 2/12/97 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote:
>
><Some deleted>
>
>> even more happy to pay, say, 10 cents to each recipient.  At that rate, an average
>> person would probably receive enough "spam" to  pay for his Internet
>> account, quite analogous to the way advertiser-supported TV is presented to
>> the public for no explicit charge.
>
>	Yes, but why does monetary compensation make it then O.K.? 


What, exactly, is your definition of "O.K."?    I didn't say that would make 
it "O.K."   Rather, the inclusion of the money makes the spam somewhat more 
tolerable of an intrusion than it would otherwise be.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com