Well, it seems that Earl has chosen to demonstrate his ignorance of accepted Internet protocol by not only spamming (itself a felony crime in the US), but by forwarding private correspondence to a public forum. I have been careful to respond to communications regarding this subject only via email and not the reflector, but if Earl wants a public discussion of the inappropriateness of his activity, so be it.
Yes, Earl, you are exhibiting the characteristics of a clueless newbie, Internet jargon for someone who doesn't understand the history and accepted practices of the Internet. My own experience with the Internet predates commercial use of any sort (Merit/NSFNet) - a time when you lost your feed if you tried to use it for business, which no one did because it was against the rules and strongly enforced by peer pressure. The spam you sent was not informational, it was commercial. More useful information is easily had by doing a simple Google search, as someone already pointed out. There's no difference between you putting "it may interest some of you" on the front of a spam and the millions of spams sent out daily which start with "Hey, I thought you might like this..." or something similar. Now you come along and try to rationalize criminal activity and theft of service (spam), unremorsefully. You've encouraged others to respond to spam, further propagating the problem. It is actions and lack of understanding such as yours which have made spam the significant problem it is today. Without an audience, spam wouldn't be profitable, and therefore wouldn't exist. By forwarding spam to a larger audience, you are both the problem and the cause, yet you continue to defend your action. This same can be said in some ways about ham radio - in the past the "self-policing" nature made it easy for the FCC to justify the (minimal) regulation necessary to support and maintain. More recently, that "self-policing" has begun to break down, and now we've got license testing fraud and Hollingsworth because hams look the other way instead of applying peer pressure when improper behavior is observed. Along that trendline, we can only expect more regulation. You're not simply ignoring improper Internet behavior, you're actively encouraging it. Yes, Earl, you've demonstrated that you are a clueless newbie with regard to the Internet, at best. If you actually knew what you were doing when you spamed the list, that just makes it worse and you do deserve censure. With your history, you should know better. At 10:41 AM 4/13/2005, Earl W Cunningham wrote... >Mike S wrote: > >"It's exactly because of clueless newbies like you that there is a spam >problem in the first place." > >(The rest of his e-mail censored because of foul language) >========== >I have NEVER bought anything nor visited a Web site advertised by a >spammer. > >This "clueless newbie" has been into computer hardware and software >professionally since 1966. (Retired 1994.) > >Bought (built) my first PC in 1979. Authored much ham radio software >since then, much of it used world-wide today. > >Member of the Elecraft e-mail list since April 2002 -- others before >that. > >Celebrating my 51st year as a ham (first licensed as W8DGP in 1955 - >Extra Class since 1963). > >Newbie??? > >73, de Earl, K6SE (not a vanity callsign) >K2/100 #2622 >_______________________________________________ >Elecraft mailing list >Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net >You must be a subscriber to post to the list. >Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): > http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > >Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm >Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com _______________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Post to: Elecraft@mailman.qth.net You must be a subscriber to post to the list. Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.): http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com
