"William X. Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > With upwards of a billion (1,000,000,000) people going online in the next
> > few years, i find maximum comfort in people moving towards opt in
> > scenarios. I am seriously concerned about the possibility of having
> > 10,000 unsolicited mail pieces in my in box every day.
>
Y'see, I'm not even going to go down that road, because there's no accurate
way of guaging what will come about. But the simple fact of the matter that
*one* piece of unsolicited email in my Inbox in the morning is too much. I
didn't *ask* for it, I didn't *want*, and, since UCE/UBE/Spam transfers the
cost to the end-user, I'm forced to *pay* for it. And you think that's
*right* William? Is it any wonder people think what they think about you?
> I here that argument from people who want all communications
> (telephone, mail, email, etc) to require opt-in, but the fact is that
> the numbers never seem to be accurate. We have had telephone solicitation,
> bulk email, etc for ages, and there is nothing to indicate that the
> scenario you present would ever occur. People who take this 100% opt-in
> position, tend to blow the issues out of proportion.
>
Ha! And the numbers from orgs like the ADMA are? Don't make me laugh!
> I did not do an exact quote of Adam, but I did properly describe his
> position.
>
No you didn't. If you properly described my position, I wouldn't tell you now
that you're wrong - you misquoted me.
adam
