[dsn_klr650] spam is litter nklr, was $250 line of credit

[Krgrife@aol.com]

In a message dated 8/16/00 6:41:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time, garagedoor79@... writes: << . Some will argue the 95 and prior models should have their cam tensioners upgraded to the new system, some will not. Besides, how often does an engine just completely expire? >> I personally know of four that have locked up when the balancer chain broke. Mine was one. Engine damage was extensive in all cases. Kurt Grife

[Russell Scott]

I am sick and tired of spam, the lunch meat I share with my pets, being associated with junk e-mail. I am forming S.P.A.M.M. (Sandwich People Against Maligned Meat). All you spam lover's out there send me a donation of $25.00 or more, and I will let Congress know we are "mad as hell, and we are not going to allow spam to me misrepresented by the internet cult-ure." Russel'r DSN_klr650@egroups.com ' Subject: RE: [DSN_klr650] Re: spam is litter nklr, was $250 Line Of Credit You certainly have a valid point. I merely wanted to say that spam really doesn't bother me & it's easy to deal with at the user's desktop. It does sound a little silly, but it really is a First Amendment issue that has recently been playing out in the U.S. Judicial System. Sure, at the local list level where we all agree to certain rules; it doesn't hold. But when you look at the entire spam issue & who deals with it and how, it certainly is a First Amendment issue. Should it be blocked & how should it be blocked? Do you create organizations whose sole purpose is to block spam and make a list of all offenders and publish that list? And does it stop with spam? Do we create Internet spam police? Enough, sorry, getting carried away again. It's because I haven't ridden my A13 in almost two weeks. It's been raining too much. F&*k spam. I've got to go out and ride. -Brian Shepard A13 -----Original Message----- From: Steve Anderson To: DSN_klr650@egroups.com Sent: 8/16/00 7:14 PM Subject: [DSN_klr650] Re: spam is litter nklr, was $250 Line Of Credit Brian, I for one, do NOT want my email to become as USELESS as my front mailbox. I do NOT want any UNSOLICITED email, faxes, telephone calls, or snail mail for that matter. It is NOT a first amendment issue. Restricting content of a web site or newspaper may be, but me restricting access to MY ears or eyes (not YOURS) is my RIGHT. If I have to weed through more junk than content, it becomes a waste of my time and money. I too have been in this business forever, and I get extremely frustrated by unsolicited anything whether it is advertising, a survey, or simply the weather. ------------------ If spammers have their way, most of the messages will be spam. ------------------ I had to explain to my local newspaper company some of this. They kept delivering a "Wednesday special" that I had in the past let them know over and over I didn't want. It's like this: I don't read it, but I am still responsible for throwing it away, I will get a nasty-gram from the city if I let them pile up. From my perspective then, they are littering in my yard, hardly a first amendment protection issue. Spam is no different from my perspective. Spammers are littering my email server and clients, and I have to spend MY time deleting them, and MY money to have adequate resources in my systems to get the items I want in addition to their junk. I will fight it every step. I finally got the newspaper to stop, by letting them know that if I got one more piece of their trash in my yard, I was going to take some nasty, smelly garbage that I produced, and drop it in their lobby. I should be able to this under first amendment if they can leave their trash in my yard. I wish I could do this to spammers, even if figuratively, but their email return addresses are seldom ever real, a good indication of their intent. Typical spammers steal an AOL logon, get a hotmail address, and spam away. If the first amendment is supposed to protect people in allowing them to abuse MY resources that I pay for, than it is high time to rewrite or repeal that amendment. Maybe we need to set up email for people like yourself that encourage spam. I don't want it, and I can't see what possible benefit to me OR society there is by having to deal with it. Steve (anti spam) Anderson

--- In DSN_klr650@egroups.com, "Shepard,Brian" wrote: > Please don't take this the wrong way. I have been a Systems > Programmer/Administrator for almost 20 years and spam is nothing new. Its > been going on way before the Internet as we know it now. I used to deal with > it a lot way back in the Eighties (remember BitNet anyone?). What puzzles me > is how enraged people get about spam now. Sometimes I wonder if people get > angry because it's fashionable. Somebody sees what they think is a computer > pro getting angry about spam so they get angry when they're really not > angry. They want people to think they're cool because they get angry about > spam. There is this little known secret in the IT community. Its called > DELETE. Its really cool. You just delete a piece of mail you don't want to > read. > > I'm more concerned about people "protecting me" from spam than people > spamming me. Think about it. This is a First Amendment issue. I'd rather > choose for myself weather or not I want to read a piece of mail. Now I know > that the intentions of the list management is sincere and I'm not asking you > to NOT block spam. I just think people need to think more about the issues. > Its very simple to delete. You can't delete something that's not there. > FREEDOM! > > -Brian Shepard > A13 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Fred Hink [mailto:moabmc@l...] > Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 2:43 PM > To: DSN_klr650@egroups.com > Subject: Re: [DSN_klr650] $250 Line Of Credit > > > Sick 'em ARNE!! > > Maybe it might be a good time to change your subscription options to have > you approve new subscribers before they can post to our list. > > Fred (I like Spam for lunch) >