argus aad spam
Cliff Heller
Everyone hates spam, but apparently argus aad thinks it's ok to send
unwanted promotional email to anyone who has ever posted to this newsgroup.
Show them how much you hate spam by not purchasing their product. If
you buy from them, then you are creating an incentive for more and more
spam from the future.
Consider this - sending unwanted commercial email is a violation of the
terms of service of every reputable ISP. Do you want to give your
business to any company that tells you up front that they don't respect
their contractual obligations?
--
"Letters may be used to construct words, phrases and sentences that may be
deemed offensive."
-Warning label on children's alphabet blocks
Andy
It's a bit over the top to get on your high horse isn't it??
Jesus, how many bits of crap mail do you get? Do you get so upset about all
of them? Do you throw your toys out of the pram like this and write a book
about each and every bit of spam?
Take it easy before you look a fool.
By the way I have bugger all to do with them but I did get info sent to me
as well and I don't normally post to this group so you'll probably find that
you are wrong and that they have bought mailing lists??
Andy
--
Skydive Zone
Tel: 07000 FREEFALL
Tel: 0870 2000 933
Tel: 0870 2000 944
Mob: 07832 348199
Fax: 0870 2000 955
ju...@skydivezone.co.uk
www.skydivezone.co.uk
"Cliff Heller" <fn...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:upy80g7...@panix3.panix.com...
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
> "Cliff Heller" <fn...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:upy80g7...@panix3.panix.com...
> >
> > Everyone hates spam, but apparently argus aad thinks it's ok to send
> > unwanted promotional email to anyone who has ever posted to this
> > newsgroup.
> >
> > Show them how much you hate spam by not purchasing their product. If
> > you buy from them, then you are creating an incentive for more and more
> > spam from the future.
> >
> > Consider this - sending unwanted commercial email is a violation of the
> > terms of service of every reputable ISP. Do you want to give your
> > business to any company that tells you up front that they don't respect
> > their contractual obligations?
> >
> Hey Cliff, calm down mate otherwise you'll blow a gasket!
He seemed pretty calm to me.
> It's a bit over the top to get on your high horse isn't it??
To advocate against spam? That's hardly a high horse. Spam
is about as low on the food chain as one could go.
> Jesus, how many bits of crap mail do you get?
Thousands, but most of them are from anonymous remailers,
not actual brick and mortars looking for my business.
> Do you get so upset about all of them?
Dunno 'bout Cliff, but I don't like any of them.
> Do you throw your toys out of the pram like this and write a book
> about each and every bit of spam?
Book? Apparently you're the one still in a pram. Books are
generally much longer than this.
> Take it easy before you look a fool.
Advice one might suggest for the speaker.
> By the way I have bugger all to do with them but I did get info sent to me
> as well and I don't normally post to this group so you'll probably find that
> you are wrong and that they have bought mailing lists??
It's hard to know where any spammer gets his lists. Multiple
sources
is more likely.
Oh, and top posting is wrong too.
Andy
I'm guessing that you guys have some sort "invasion of privacy" drama going
on?
I'm not pissed off but you are therefore your toys are missing not mine, get
a life and, as I mentioned before, relax!
You pricks get too touchy sometimes! Christ, I remember 10 years ago getting
pissed off with snuffy about the same stuff until I was educated!!!!!
Have you ever thought of it like this?? Some company is trying to sell its
"skydiving" product to skydivers so it targets a skydiving
audience!!!!!!!!!!! KEPOWWWW
Well done lightning
Andy
--
Skydive Zone
Tel: 07000 FREEFALL
Tel: 0870 2000 933
Tel: 0870 2000 944
Mob: 07832 348199
Fax: 0870 2000 955
ju...@skydivezone.co.uk
www.skydivezone.co.uk
<ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1139946710.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Cliff Heller
> I'm guessing that you guys have some sort "invasion of privacy" drama going
> on?
Try theft of services.
Spam is wrong because the sender doesn't pay for it, the receiver and
all the intermediaries do.
It's like if you use voice mail for business calls and find it full of
solicitations overnight so that it is rejecting anything legitimate.
Or marketing calls to your cell phone using up your allocated minutes.
Or fax advertising where you must replace the paper and toner.
And yes, I'm more annoyed by it when it comes from "within the family"
Here's a company emulating the business practices of porno spammers,
penis enlargers and nigerian con artists, who have explicitly violated a
contract in order to contact you, and they are trying to sell you a life
saving device?
> I'm not pissed off but you are therefore your toys are missing not mine, get
> a life and, as I mentioned before, relax!
> You pricks get too touchy sometimes! Christ, I remember 10 years ago getting
> pissed off with snuffy about the same stuff until I was educated!!!!!
There's no current evidence of your education. Five exclamation marks?
And I need to relax?
> Have you ever thought of it like this?? Some company is trying to sell its
> "skydiving" product to skydivers so it targets a skydiving
> audience!!!!!!!!!!! KEPOWWWW
wow. eleven of them.
Ok, I know it's hard, but calm down and think this through with me.
Suppose every company with an honest, legitimate reason to believe you
might be interested in their product sent you an email. Only one per
year.
Your email would be unusable. You'd get thousands of messages per day
with no way to distinguish the legitimate ones from the non-legitimate
ones. If would be as if every time you hung up your cell phone it rang
again with someone trying to sell you something. The only reason that
hasn't happened yet is because most legitimate marketers exercise
restraint. Argus did not - and thus associated themselves with the
bottom of the barrell. No way to get a leg up in a small market.
> Well done lightning
I don't know what that means.
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
Andy wrote:
> So you're bent out of shape too eh??
What possibly could have given you that idea?
Me thinks thy doth protest too much. Are we a closet spammer?
> I'm guessing that you guys have some sort "invasion of privacy" drama going
> on?
Nah, just have to wade through hundreds and thousands a week.
More than a few legitimate messages have gotten missed.
> I'm not pissed off but you are therefore your toys are missing not mine, get
> a life and, as I mentioned before, relax!
Quite relaxed. You on the other hand seem to be grinding hard on
some axe.
> You pricks get too touchy sometimes! Christ, I remember 10 years ago getting
> pissed off with snuffy about the samestuff until I was educated!!!!!
So you are projecting your own past onto others. Now I
understand.
> Have you ever thought of it like this?? Some company is trying to sell its
> "skydiving" product to skydivers so it targets a skydiving
> audience!!!!!!!!!!! KEPOWWWW
Yes, I have. (Why do spammers think they are the only ones to
think of this?) I'm "targeted" for all manner of reasons, including my
income level, the car I drive, my sports, heck just visiting a web site
can generate a fairly large amount of traffic. None of it is welcome.
And you're still top posting.
[snip]
Kevin O'Connell
sparky98
<ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1139946710.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Andy wrote:
>> Hey Cliff, calm down mate otherwise you'll blow a gasket!
>
> He seemed pretty calm to me.
>
>> It's a bit over the top to get on your high horse isn't it??
>
> To advocate against spam? That's hardly a high horse. Spam
> is about as low on the food chain as one could go.
Is Spam actually on the food chain?
Perhaps it is actually Soylent Pink. Which then begs the question: Animal,
Vegetable, or Mineral? Certainly not a question I want answered...
sparky98
>> is about as low on the food chain as one could go.
>
> Is Spam actually on the food chain?
>
> Perhaps it is actually Soylent Pink. Which then begs the question: Animal,
> Vegetable, or Mineral? Certainly not a question I want answered...
>
And if Soylent Green is people, then what would Soylent Pink be? If it,
too, is people, then by the associative property, Spam would be at the top
(or very damn close) of the aforementioned food chain.
Andy
"Cliff Heller" <fn...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:upoe19t...@panix3.panix.com...
> "Andy" <an...@skydivezone.co.uk> writes:
>
>> I'm guessing that you guys have some sort "invasion of privacy" drama
>> going
>> on?
>
> Try theft of services.
> Spam is wrong because the sender doesn't pay for it, the receiver and
> all the intermediaries do.
You are missing my point Cliff. It's clear that you feel very strongly about
spam, as I do, but my point was that this particular email was from the
manufacturer of a new piece of skydiving equipment which might have more
relavence to you.
>
> It's like if you use voice mail for business calls and find it full of
> solicitations overnight so that it is rejecting anything legitimate.
>
> Or marketing calls to your cell phone using up your allocated minutes.
Yes, these are a pain. I don't get billed for incoming calls though, is it
different there? I'm usually rude to them in the hope they'll never call
back.
>
> Or fax advertising where you must replace the paper and toner.
We have a thing called fps online (some sort of government anti junk fax
list) where you can enter your fax number and the unsolicitored faxes just
dry up. We also have tps online for telephone calls. It may be that you have
a similar thing there. Might be worth checking.
>
> And yes, I'm more annoyed by it when it comes from "within the family"
This was all I was getting at mate. Ever since one of the new wind tunnels
opened here I get updates and news from them but I really don't ever
remember asking for it. Having run a skydiving business for 9 years though,
I am well aware of how difficult it is to make a living (with our weather)
in this industry. Calling for an all out boycott on their products just
because they sent you an email seems a little extreme? Another way might be
to reply asking them to take you off their mailing list, don't you think?
> Here's a company emulating the business practices of porno spammers,
> penis enlargers and nigerian con artists, who have explicitly violated a
> contract in order to contact you, and they are trying to sell you a life
> saving device?
>
>> I'm not pissed off but you are therefore your toys are missing not mine,
>> get
>> a life and, as I mentioned before, relax!
>
>> You pricks get too touchy sometimes! Christ, I remember 10 years ago
>> getting
>> pissed off with snuffy about the same stuff until I was educated!!!!!
>
> There's no current evidence of your education. Five exclamation marks?
> And I need to relax?
Hmmm, when there's no argument we resort to having a dig eh? Well maybe
there's some spelling errors in here too.
>
>> Have you ever thought of it like this?? Some company is trying to sell
>> its
>> "skydiving" product to skydivers so it targets a skydiving
>> audience!!!!!!!!!!! KEPOWWWW
>
> wow. eleven of them.
la la la la lala la la la
>
> Ok, I know it's hard, but calm down and think this through with me.
> Suppose every company with an honest, legitimate reason to believe you
> might be interested in their product sent you an email. Only one per
> year.
>
> Your email would be unusable. You'd get thousands of messages per day
> with no way to distinguish the legitimate ones from the non-legitimate
> ones. If would be as if every time you hung up your cell phone it rang
> again with someone trying to sell you something. The only reason that
> hasn't happened yet is because most legitimate marketers exercise
> restraint. Argus did not - and thus associated themselves with the
> bottom of the barrell. No way to get a leg up in a small market.
OK, let's try this another way. So you design this great, or what you think
is great, product and you want to sell it to skydivers. How are you going to
go about it? I suspect yuo'll not be in business for long unless you use
similar methods, simple as that.
Andy
<ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1139966036.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Andy wrote:
>> So you're bent out of shape too eh??
>
> What possibly could have given you that idea?
> Me thinks thy doth protest too much. Are we a closet spammer?
WE? Wel I don'y know about you but I'm not
>
>> I'm guessing that you guys have some sort "invasion of privacy" drama
>> going
>> on?
>
> Nah, just have to wade through hundreds and thousands a week.
> More than a few legitimate messages have gotten missed.
Oh right, and that doesn't happen to me here. I only have 5 pc's in my
office so I don't have to deal with any of this. Get Norton Internet
Security 2006 mate and it'll get rid of most of them. There are ways around
it and I'm sure you're aware of that.
>
>> I'm not pissed off but you are therefore your toys are missing not mine,
>> get
>> a life and, as I mentioned before, relax!
>
> Quite relaxed. You on the other hand seem to be grinding hard on
> some axe.
Why would I be. I responded to someone asking all skydivers to "teach them a
lesson by not buying their products". Quite laughable really and no a single
response of support or agreement apart from to me, well I never.
>
>> You pricks get too touchy sometimes! Christ, I remember 10 years ago
>> getting
>> pissed off with snuffy about the samestuff until I was educated!!!!!
>
> So you are projecting your own past onto others. Now I
> understand.
>
>> Have you ever thought of it like this?? Some company is trying to sell
>> its
>> "skydiving" product to skydivers so it targets a skydiving
>> audience!!!!!!!!!!! KEPOWWWW
>
> Yes, I have. (Why do spammers think they are the only ones to
> think of this?) I'm "targeted" for all manner of reasons, including my
>
> income level, the car I drive, my sports, heck just visiting a web site
> can generate a fairly large amount of traffic. None of it is welcome.
Get NIS 2006
>
> And you're still top posting.
Sorry
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Kevin O'Connell
>
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
> <ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
[snip]
> > To advocate against spam? That's hardly a high horse. Spam
> > is about as low on the food chain as one could go.
>
> Is Spam actually on the food chain?
Yes.
> Perhaps it is actually Soylent Pink. Which then begs the question: Animal,
> Vegetable, or Mineral?
First two.
> Certainly not a question I want answered...
Too late. And more than you wanted to know.
Kevin O'Connell
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
Andy wrote:
> <ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
> news:1139966036.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> I'm guessing that you guys have some sort "invasion of privacy" drama
> >> going
> >> on?
> >
> > Nah, just have to wade through hundreds and thousands a week.
> > More than a few legitimate messages have gotten missed.
>
> Oh right, and that doesn't happen to me here. I only have 5 pc's in my
> office so I don't have to deal with any of this. Get Norton Internet
> Security 2006 mate and it'll get rid of most of them. There are ways around
> it and I'm sure you're aware of that.
It runs on UNIX now?
> >> I'm not pissed off but you are therefore your toys are missing not mine,
> >> get
> >> a life and, as I mentioned before, relax!
> >
> > Quite relaxed. You on the other hand seem to be grinding hard on
> > some axe.
>
> Why would I be.
I have no idea, but you keep projecting emotions on people they don't
have.
> I responded to someone asking all skydivers to "teach them a
> lesson by not buying their products". Quite laughable really and no a single
> response of support or agreement apart from to me, well I never.
You wanna try that sentence in english this time?
[snip]
> > income level, the car I drive, my sports, heck just visiting a web site
> > can generate a fairly large amount of traffic. None of it is welcome.
>
> Get NIS 2006
So now I'm not only suppose to pay for these folks to send me the
messages, but I'm suppose to pay to prevent myself from having to
sort through them?
Kevin O'Connell
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
> > And yes, I'm more annoyed by it when it comes from "within the family"
>
> This was all I was getting at mate. Ever since one of the new wind tunnels
> opened here I get updates and news from them but I really don't ever
> remember asking for it. Having run a skydiving business for 9 years though,
> I am well aware of how difficult it is to make a living (with our weather)
> in this industry. Calling for an all out boycott on their products just
> because they sent you an email seems a little extreme? Another way might be
> to reply asking them to take you off their mailing list, don't you think?
You might have a point here. Although I'm dubious as at this point
this isn't
exactly rocket science and everyone is fairly knowledgeable about spam.
But one could make an argument that a fairly pointed email might better
proceed a call for a boycott of the product. I'm dubious that it is so
since
the vast majority of spam doesn't have a human listening on the other
end.
As a point of reference, because I posted some stuff to a travel news
group, I got on a mailing list for DC. I've sent them mail numerous
times, per their instructions, to be removed, and they continue to
pester me. The few times I've found myself on skydiving spam lists,
I've had to suffer through arguments from them on why I should want
to be on the list, much like you are doing. So you might excuse me
if I am less than enthusiastic about your proposal. (There was
one notable exception however).
[snip]
> OK, let's try this another way. So you design this great, or what you think
> is great, product and you want to sell it to skydivers. How are you going to
> go about it? I suspect yuo'll not be in business for long unless you use
> similar methods, simple as that.
I am dubious that spamming folks is much better. God's to honest
truth is that there are two ways to sell stuff to skydivers and neither
of them involve direct advertising. Word of mouth, especially the
mouths of perceived authorities seems to be the #1 method. Getting
various governing organizations interested in mandating seems to be
#2.
Kevin O'Connell
Andy
news:1140009256....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Andy wrote:
>> <ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
>> news:1139966036.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> [snip]
>> >> I'm guessing that you guys have some sort "invasion of privacy" drama
>> >> going
>> >> on?
>> >
>> > Nah, just have to wade through hundreds and thousands a week.
>> > More than a few legitimate messages have gotten missed.
>>
>> Oh right, and that doesn't happen to me here. I only have 5 pc's in my
>> office so I don't have to deal with any of this. Get Norton Internet
>> Security 2006 mate and it'll get rid of most of them. There are ways
>> around
>> it and I'm sure you're aware of that.
>
> It runs on UNIX now?
Don't really understand how that works but I do know that since I stuck the
Norton on mine is all gets taken away, well most of it.
>
>> >> I'm not pissed off but you are therefore your toys are missing not
>> >> mine,
>> >> get
>> >> a life and, as I mentioned before, relax!
>> >
>> > Quite relaxed. You on the other hand seem to be grinding hard on
>> > some axe.
>>
>> Why would I be.
>
> I have no idea, but you keep projecting emotions on people they don't
> have.
In my opinion the initial post gives a fairly heavy handed approach to the
offence committed don't you think? OK they spammed their product to get it
out there but calling upon the jumpers of the world for a boycott, I ask
you? When people incite these types of measures it could be devastating for
the company concerned. Now I'd love to see that happen to some of them but
not anyone in this industry, I know loads of people that earn their living
from it. I'm sure you do too. What if a few of your friends worked for the
AAD company concerned?
>
>> I responded to someone asking all skydivers to "teach them a
>> lesson by not buying their products". Quite laughable really and no a
>> single
>> response of support or agreement apart from to me, well I never.
>
> You wanna try that sentence in english this time?
I'll try. I responded to someone calling for a boycott. The person who
started this thread hasn't had a single bit of support posted which leads me
to believe that anyone reading it probably has a chuckle and moves on. Clear
enough this time?
>
> [snip]
>> > income level, the car I drive, my sports, heck just visiting a web site
>> > can generate a fairly large amount of traffic. None of it is welcome.
>>
>> Get NIS 2006
>
> So now I'm not only suppose to pay for these folks to send me the
> messages, but I'm suppose to pay to prevent myself from having to
> sort through them?
I don't understand how or why you pay to recieve email? Is the system
different to ours? That is a serious question by the way.
I don't think you should have to pay to prevent yourself from having to sort
through them but, you would be a complete idiot, which I don't believe you
are, if you didn't have some sort of protection on you pc.
What has amazed me since installing NIS is how many nasty little things keep
throwing themselves into my pc, feeding back the info that you mentioned in
your last post to marketing companies etc. At least NIS is getting rid of
them on a regular basis.
Andy
> Kevin O'Connell
>
ynotssor
Andy <an...@skydivezone.co.uk> wrote:
> In my opinion the initial post gives a fairly heavy handed approach to the
> offence committed don't you think?
Of course he thinks, but he doesn't agree with you, nor do I.
> OK they spammed their product to get it out there ...
What you fail to understand is that they (Argus) didn't conduct the spam
mailing, they paid a professional spamming outfit in Belgium to do their
dirty work. Guess what that professional spamming outfit will now do with
those harvested addresses that Argus supplied? That's right, they sell them
to other professional spamming outfits worldwide. They ALL do.
> When people incite these types of measures it could be devastating
> for the company concerned.
You're starting to slowly catch on. Spamming needs to be stopped in any and
all industries. When their sales drop to the point of seriously jeopardizing
their business, then maybe they'll start to catch on too.
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
[snip]
> > I have no idea, but you keep projecting emotions on people they don't
> > have.
>
> In my opinion the initial post gives a fairly heavy handed approach to the
> offence committed don't you think?
Well, no. I mean, in my other response I mentioned that you had some
point that a sternly worded letter such as you suggested might have
been more appropriate, but that I was dubious of its usefulness.
> OK they spammed their product to get it
> out there but calling upon the jumpers of the world for a boycott, I ask
> you? When people incite these types of measures it could be devastating for
> the company concerned.
And your point? SPAM is devistating to another business, basically
the whole ISP system not to mention the various major hubs. Estimates
are that something like 60 - 80 % of email traffic right now is spam.
That puts huge burdens on systems up and down the line. You have
various providers adding significant hardware to their networks merely
because these kinda folks wanna send indiscriminate emails. Here's
a suggestion. Let them buy a list from the various skydiving
organizations
and buy a direct mail campaign. Oh, yeah but they'd have to PAY for
that,
I forgot. The burden on the email system, not to mention its
effectiveness
for business usage is under a real threat. So I'd suggest that the
devistation risk is in NOT objecting strongly to this junk.
> Now I'd love to see that happen to some of them but
> not anyone in this industry, I know loads of people that earn their living
> from it. I'm sure you do too. What if a few of your friends worked for the
> AAD company concerned?
I am not enamoured with the skydiving industry in general. I have
called for boycotts of specific service and equipment providers for
which friends have been employed. I don't condone objectionable
behavior just because friends engage in it. However, even the
pure free market advocate will tell you that businesses that do
it wrong are suppose to fail and be replaced by those that do it right.
[snip]
> I'll try. I responded to someone calling for a boycott. The person who
> started this thread hasn't had a single bit of support posted which leads me
> to believe that anyone reading it probably has a chuckle and moves on. Clear
> enough this time?
Poor assumptions make for poor conclusions. They don't post it
anymore,
but the number of regular readers to this forum can be counted on one
hand. You've wandered into an empty room and concluded everyone likes
you because no one has complained.
However, if you do a bit of googling on this subject in the past
you
could find plenty-o-folks objecting and calling for similar actions
(and worse
actually).
[snip]
> > So now I'm not only suppose to pay for these folks to send me the
> > messages, but I'm suppose to pay to prevent myself from having to
> > sort through them?
>
> I don't understand how or why you pay to recieve email? Is the system
> different to ours? That is a serious question by the way.
Probably. Folks have all sorts of limits, depending upon their
providers, for their systems. Some are on a pure "pay to play"
system. Some buy connect time in bulk, and when it is exceeded,
they pay additional charges. Some have virtually unlimited connect
times but severe storage limits (that can be exceeded in a single
day by spammers). Some pay for every byte of storage. One of
the more frustrating situations, regardless of the direct cost, is
having ones box fill up with this crap and legitimate messages
get bounced because a system has exceeded its storage limits.
> I don't think you should have to pay to prevent yourself from having to sort
> through them but, you would be a complete idiot, which I don't believe you
> are, if you didn't have some sort of protection on you pc.
I have several systems, both at the provider level and the reader
level.
Those at the provider level can help with the down load issues but can
affect the maximum storage issues. The ones on the PC still have
to down load some portion of the message before deleting it. AOL
(that I don't have) has gone so far as to attempt to deflect it at the
source. There are services to which one can subscribe (for a fee)
which will intercept it on the inbound side. But what is inescapable
is because of the huge volume of this crap, we are all paying
ultimately
for it because of the capital expenditures this stuff generates, not to
mention the amount of virus passing that gets included in this crap.
(Some folks too clueless to know not to spam are also too clueless to
know not to get infected). Finally, companies have automatic backup
systems to restore networks in case of disaster and as a result
that nigerian scam letter is backed up upon terabytes of tapes
around the world.
> What has amazed me since installing NIS is how many nasty little things keep
> throwing themselves into my pc, feeding back the info that you mentioned in
> your last post to marketing companies etc. At least NIS is getting rid of
> them on a regular basis.
One of my work PC's is the most protected and pretty much nothing
get's through. The flip side is the amount of stuff that folks try to
send me
that gets filtered out. I have another account there that has some
mild
protections. It rises and falls in effectiveness depending upon a
variety of
factors because it relies heavily upon pattern matching and it
constantly
needs new patterns fed to it. At home I'm in the midland. The ISP
detects most virus laden stuff. The rest is mildly filtered for
commercial
content (I suspect part of it is they merely want to get paid for
commercial content). I've relied upon a web based reader to prescreen
my box (so I don't actually down load the message, only the subject
line and sender) and then manually filter my box before down loading
it.
But ultimately all of this costs somebodies time, mine, my company,
my ISP, somebody. All so some clueless business can send out
advertising for free. Is it worth it? No.
Kevin O'Connell
Andy
<ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1140037845.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
OK, spammings bad. I didn't actually know that they had paid an outside
agency to shovel it all at us which, I'll agree, is very naughty.
On the VERY good side, the UK last night decided to ban smoking at ALL bars,
pubs, clubs, etc,etc. Basically anywhere that's not inside. So at least
we'll all live a little longer, but then again that means we'll get even
more spam! Dam :-)
Andy
>
> Kevin O'Connell
>
SkydiveOne
through spam. It also exists as a valid marketing method. The only
way to stop spam as the little man is to NEVER purchase any service or
product through spam. As simple as this sounds it doesn't happen or
else spam wouldn't exist.
I haven't seen the spam that's mentioned, or else I deleted it
(automatic response for most spam), or a spam filter took care of it
for me. No matter, this should be a simple enough boycott. Skydiving
is a small world, and I for one am not interested in an AAD made by a
company who uses tactics like this. Parachutist or Paragear would be a
better way to advertise, and would not alienate jumpers nearly as much.
ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com
Andy wrote:
[snip]
> On the VERY good side, the UK last night decided to ban smoking at ALL bars,
> pubs, clubs, etc,etc. Basically anywhere that's not inside.
This is one of my guilty pleasures. We had a vote here in Florida
to
ban smoking in all bars. I voted against it. Going to a bar is pretty
much
of a choice and I just couldn't see much evidence to support the ban.
But I don't smoke, and I always hated coming home all stunk up.
It passed despite my voting against it (story of my life) and now I
really like it because you can go to the pub and not wake up smelling
like an ash tray. I can even find myself complaining when someone
decides to light up despite the ban. So here I am supporting a ban
I didn't support. You can get all chaffed up stradling fences like
that.
Kevin O'Connell
sparky98
<ocon...@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1140008932.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...