 |
| |
|
|
faded glory
|
 |
This trash talking 2 bit dope dealer is about to learn respect for the law
Jan 2001
time: 05:28
|
|
And the world will SPAM with you
Written by: Alex Sandell
SPAM, it's meat in a can. SPAM, it's the most controversial form of advertising on the Internet. If you can't afford to mass-advertise in newspapers, and on television, but want to get a message out, SPAM is your best friend.
Yet people want to stop SPAM. They want to "stomp it out." Even people that could benefit by it. There's anti-SPAM campaigns everywhere. Fanatical headlines scream out rhetoric such as (and these are genuine) "Beating the email SPAMMERS," "Death to SPAM," "Ask not what SPAM can do for you, ask what YOU can do to SPAMMERS," "The SPAMMERS blacklist," "How to Sue a SPAMMER," and so on and so on. The Government is even trying to make SPAMMING illegal. Why? It scares them.
SPAM is the great equalizer. SPAM gives someone like me just about as much advertising power on the 'net as someone like Bill Gates. If I chose to write a negative article about the aforementioned Gates, I could send the article out to thousands of people. People can learn the truth through SPAM. Damnit, SPAM can set you free. And who wants that? Obviously not most computer geeks.
SPAM is a message or advertisement sent through email. It is unsolicited. It makes a lot of nerds who haven't figured out how to use the "delete" key really mad. Why are these nerds mad? They've been told that they're 'sposed to be.
They've been told this by magazines, television shows, Internet Service Providers, the Government, software companies and numerous other places that are looking out for their best interest. What these places tell them is that SPAM is wasting "bandwidth." That SPAM will destroy their treasured Internet, their life. They've been brainwashed into believing that SPAM is using all of the World Wide Web's resources. They've been told this, and just like Sneetches on the Beaches, they believe it.
Why are all these magazines, television shows, Internet Service Providers, the Government, software companies and numerous other places telling these people that SPAM is bad? Because they want to be the only ones able to advertise. The word "equalizer" terrifies them.
In newspapers, on T.V., and all those annoying billboards, it was only the big guys that could get the word out; then this thing called the Internet came along, and you didn't need to be a multi-millionaire to advertise. You didn't need your own printing-press and thousands of dollars a day to get the word to the people.
Could I advertise "The Juicy Cerebellum" on t.v.? Nope. How 'bout the newspaper? Nope. Buy a "Juicy" billboard? Nope. I could never afford it. But I can afford to advertise on the 'net. And, as many of you reading this know, a lot of the stuff written on "The Juicy Cerebellum" isn't exactly the kind of literature Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, McDonald's, Wal-Mart, or any other huge corporation (or Government institution) would want people reading.
Therefore they say my "SPAMMING" is "slowing down the Internet," and "will bring it to a halt." They even say it's murdering the Internet. If somebody says something enough, people start believing it, even if it's a blatant lie (example: "McDonald's is good food"). I'm only a small voice (not to mention, I currently have one hell of sore-throat), but I'm saying "BULLSHIT" to anyone that says SPAMMING is wrong. The anti-SPAMMERS among you are targeting the wrong guy. If you want to look at who's "slowing down" this Internet, look no further than Bill Gates or Ronald McDonald.
They're making you all red with rage when you get an email from me that takes seconds to arrive, and another second to delete, while at the same time you're waiting five minutes to read an article at "Mr. Showbiz," because the banner for "Chevy Trucks" has to finish downloading. Ooh, smart-guy, hack-boy, do the math.
THE CORPORATIONS ARE THE ONES SLOWING YOU DOWN. What do you think takes MORE space up on the 'net? A text document advertising my page, or those MILLIONS of banners that take MINUTES to load, advertising a Whopper, Microsoft, PC World, or Chevy Trucks? Of course more space is being wasted by the corporations and their banners. But these banners are just taken for granted by most of us, a part of life, right? Hey, we've been force-fed corporate trash for years, why shouldn't it get shoved down our faces on the 'net, too?
My final word of advice? If you have something to say, SAY IT. Spread the word around. SPAM! SPAM! SPAM! This is the little guy's moment in the sun, and the little guy is wasting space writing about how BAD people that take advantage of this moment are. I found over 1,000 ANTI-SPAM sites on the web, in the course of an hour. I found ZERO sites in favor of it.
SPAM is not the enemy.
There's a whole world out there . . .
SPAM IT!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
faded glory
|
|
This trash talking 2 bit dope dealer is about to learn respect for the law
Jan 2001
time: 05:28
|
|
The 'messenger' spam mentioned above is typical but easy to prevent. I have adcaster extreme and get paid about 100 bucks a month to send out those kind of messages for 2 companies ( I cant tell you which ones or what they pedal). There are apparently people who buy the stuff. Its important to note that the messages i send out (about 500 a week that actually coem back
'confirmed sent' get 'closed' by the guy on the other end. About 30,000 are sent to dead IP's. I reckon maybe 2% are read, maybe .5% purchased. Generally ill just shoot random ip lists) all have instructions on the bottom of my messages that lead to http://www.popup-killer.info/messenger-spam/ if they dotn wish to recieve any pop-ups anymore. I guess im one of the few who extend that courtesy. However i continue to get paid, so i have to think someones buying.
My view on emails is similiar. I dont exactly throw a fuss over all the spam. Ya its annoying, but there are so many strategies to prevent it. I agree totally with this page (Which i found at random btw). I think spam isnt so bad, it has alot of good uses
Last edited by faded glory on 06-06-2003 at 07:13
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
kring
|
 |
Wichita,KS,USA
Dec 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
The problem with spam is that it is overloading most people, and the cost to business and individuals is in the billions in lost productivity.
I noticed that a growing movement in trying to get Congress to give serious consideration to that old internet hoax: charging for email. I know that hoax has been around a while, but a growing number of people are pushing Congress to make it a reality, to help cut down on spam.
Other options are being discussed, and hopefully some of those will help reduce the amount of spam. One includes requiring a verification code before the email is actually received on the other end. You would be able to allow users to send you email without the code if you desired (family, friends, business acquantices, etc). Others would have to know the code to send you email and have you receive it.
Addited:
It is interesting that since I have done two things that my Yahoo spam rate has decreased over a third: 1) turned OFF my Yahoo SpamGuard; and 2) stopped reporting stuff as Spam. Turning ON SpamGuard and reporting stuff as Spam things were supposed to decrease my spam, but I noticed a significant increase after turning ON SpamGuard and reporting this is Spam. I know it could be a coincidence, but there was a dramatic increase (+100%) after doing both things, and a significant decrease (-33%) after stopping both of these things; the change happened within less than 24 hours..
Last edited by kring on 06-06-2003 at 07:31
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-06-2003 01:55
.
(To your point, not to nude teenagers 
|