Hello adam,
Tuesday, November 07, 2000, 4:20:42 PM, you wrote:
> 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 have, on many other forums, debunked the school of thought regarding
spam being a cost shifting argument. It is really offtopic here, but
if you would like to email me offlist, I will gladly provide you URLs
to archive threads where this issue has been discussed, and where the
numbers clearly show that the cost shifting argument is a strawman.
>> 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!
Did I quote the ADMA?
--
Best regards,
William mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
