Now someone's trying to sell us hand bags! I killed to two posts by this turkey.
Turn the spammer into their product. not that the world really needs a "spambag" but still.
I had a fried Spam sandwich the other day--man, did it hit the spot!!
Yeah, I saw those posts and I just don't understand someone signing up specifically to spam us.
Here I am reading the Badmovies.org board because that is what I'm interested in. Suddenly...I see a post...no wait...2 posts spamming handbags! I am certainly going to go to that site now and buy handbags from them. Who would've thought that in my furor to read this board all the time, that all this time I've been overlooking my true desire...the purchase of Chinese made handbags! OH JOY! I have found bliss at last! Goodbye everyone, it's been nice hanging here for the last year and a half but I'm spending all my time on the handbag site!
OH MY GOD! Trek got rid of the links! NOOOOoooooooooooooooooooo.....
Has anyone every got spam for Spam?
You know what I always wanted to do? I want to put together a massive .bmp of a can of spam, and then send it over and over again as a mass mailing to the in-boxes of every executive working for a company that uses spam to advertise. Then I'd send about 2,000,000 copies to that jackassin Africa who thinks I'm dumb enough to give him my bank acount number.
"Then I'd send about 2,000,000 copies to that jackassin Africa who thinks I'm dumb enough to give him my bank acount number."
WHAT? That was a scam? Oh, say it isn't so...I'm expecting to become rich beyond my wildest dreams any day now.
Blue.Brutal wrote:
> You know what I always wanted to do? I want to put together a
> massive .bmp of a can of spam, and then send it over and over
> again as a mass mailing to the in-boxes of every executive
> working for a company that uses spam to advertise.
Good luck finding them; they hide themselves pretty good. Spam is often not legit advertising for real products, but rather a vector for other fraud based crime.
In other words, the companies that use spam to advertise generally are not typical, legit companies with execs sitting around saying "hey, let's market our product via spam."
On the tech side, one of the problems with spam is that it uses resources: network bandwidth, disk space on servers (which in turn causes wear and tear and leads to earlier component failures), etc. If you send something back to them in a mass mailing, you are contributing to that consumption of resources.
A better solution: shoot 'em when you catch 'em.
ulthar wrote:
> On the tech side, one of the problems with spam is that it uses
> resources: network bandwidth, disk space on servers (which in
> turn causes wear and tear and leads to earlier component
> failures), etc. If you send something back to them in a mass
> mailing, you are contributing to that consumption of resources.
>
> A better solution: shoot 'em when you catch 'em.
>
All true, except the shooting them thing - they're sending out spam, not killing children, here.
And I know that I can't spam them back (legal reasons come into play here - because it's retaliatory, it falls under the heading of "harassment"); I just want to clog their inboxes the way they clog mine; is that so much to ask?
Besides, I'm not interested in the people sending the spam. I'm interested in the companies sponsoring them; Governments world wide can't seem to figure out that it's only by getthing those guys that you can stop (or at least, slow down) spam.
Blue.Brutal wrote:
> All true, except the shooting them thing - they're sending out
> spam, not killing children, here.
Are people who are trying to scam others of their life savings, take advantage of tragedy for personal gain, or cruely harass people for the pure enjoyment of it much better themselves?
I agree...shoot the SOBs. Kill 'em all, let (insert your god of choice here) sort 'em out!
Menard wrote:
> Blue.Brutal wrote:
>
> > All true, except the shooting them thing - they're sending
> out
> > spam, not killing children, here.
>
> Are people who are trying to scam others of their life savings,
> take advantage of tragedy for personal gain, or cruely harass
> people for the pure enjoyment of it much better themselves?
>
Are they better than people who go around killing children? Yes. Yes, I think they are. Because that last part there - "cruely harass people for the pure enjoyment of it," take that sentence, and replace the word "harass" with the word "kill" and the word "people" with the word "children," and you get:: "cruely kill children for the pure enjoyment of it"
That doesn't sound worse to you? I mean, by a fair ammount?
Hmmm...you can't reason with Menard and it's really pointless to try now anyway. Daveblackeye is hunting him down as we speak. Really, this means you're trying to reason with a dead man. Now, let him go back into hiding where he can live out the remainder of his days in fear of the time that Dave finds him.
Blue.Brutal wrote:
> Are they better than people who go around killing children?
> Yes. Yes, I think they are. Because that last part there -
> "cruely harass people for the pure enjoyment of it," take that
> sentence, and replace the word "harass" with the word "kill"
> and the word "people" with the word "children," and you get::
> "cruely kill children for the pure enjoyment of it"
Is there much difference in the mindset of someone who kills and someone who tortures, neither feeling any regret in their actions and even getting pleasure from it? There is a difference in the end result, as a living victim, although perhaps scarred for life, does have a life to try to rebuild; but the person who did that will continue to leave many more victims. I personally feel that there is no greater crime than a crime against a child. There are, however, those who toe the line in being able to victimize others and still stay just out of reach of prosecution. They get a pleasure out of victimizing people and the reactions they get from their victims, and will continue to do it to many more. To me, they are no better than murderers.
What really frightens me is the thought that Dave has a sword in his pocket for me. Eewwww..
Blue.Brutal wrote:
>
> Besides, I'm not interested in the people sending the spam.
> I'm interested in the companies sponsoring them; Governments
> world wide can't seem to figure out that it's only by getthing
> those guys that you can stop (or at least, slow down) spam.
>
The point is, the 'companies sponsoring them' are not legit companies that are easy to locate. The ones who send the spam are doing so at the behest of other criminals. Governments are having a hard time locating the criminals, whether they be the ones who send spam or sponsor it.
Besides, I am sure 'governments' have figured this out. Doing something about it is easier said than done.
Boy are these handbags cheesy.
trek_geezer wrote:
> Boy are these handbags cheesy.
>
You got some already? I'm still waiting for mine to come in. Gee, I hope it's not a scam since I gave them my credit card number and spent $2000 on their bags...I just couldn't decide which ones I wanted.
Murder victims usually don't continue on with their lives. Spammer victims and victims of other cons generally do.
It's apples and oranges, really. You might not want to associate with either, but a murderer is clearly the worse villian.
Menard wrote:
> Is there much difference in the mindset of someone who kills
> and someone who tortures, neither feeling any regret in their
> actions and even getting pleasure from it? There is a
> difference in the end result, as a living victim, although
> perhaps scarred for life, does have a life to try to rebuild;
> but the person who did that will continue to leave many more
> victims. I personally feel that there is no greater crime than
> a crime against a child. There are, however, those who toe the
> line in being able to victimize others and still stay just out
> of reach of prosecution. They get a pleasure out of victimizing
> people and the reactions they get from their victims, and will
> continue to do it to many more. To me, they are no better than
> murderers.
>
You know what I just realized? We're going to have to agree to disagree on this matter; I don't think I've run into a more pointless thing to argue about recently, so I think I'm pretty much done here. I respect that this is how you see things, and that's cool. I just don't agree.
Cullen wrote:
>
> It's apples and oranges, really. You might not want to
> associate with either, but a murderer is clearly the worse
> villian.
This is getting off-topic by quite a bit, but you raise an interesting point. Some people see "levels" of right and wrong.
It was only recently (the past half century or so, roughly) that this relativism began.
I'm not sure it's a good thing. You know, speeding is a crime, yet you often hear people saying "it's only speeding."
Now, what's being debated here is appropriate punishment, and I understand the debate. As the original "shoot 'em" poster, I'll say I was serious. And here's why:
A few years ago, I was engaged in a debate with someone about whether it was right or wrong for me to kill someone breaking into my house. I believe it is not only my "right," but also my responsibility. A person who does that is saying they don't want to play by the rules, and they are willing to put their own selfish greed ahead of the safety of my family. I would not be shooting someone to save my TV, but, in a sense, to save our way of life: a way that is premised on honoring other people's stuff, and more importantly, their space.
Is a spammer in this category? I think they are. They cause a lot of damage. One may argue that that damage is only "financial;" I say there is more to it than that. Spamming is a huge social problem (whether you recognize it or not, it does have large scale economic impact, which influences peoples lives...maybe not to the traumatic degree as murder, but I'm sure being 75 years old and having your life's savings ripped off is pretty freakin bad, or the price of goods going up effects EVERYBODY--that's what unchecked organized crime does).
Basically, the spammers are saying "you are not safe." We can work hard for years and years and through one mistake (say clicking a link when you meant to click delete) perhaps made while being distracted by the phone ringing, it's all gone. They are damaging the infrastructure of the Internet, which is a PUBLIC RESOURCE (query: if a person went and cut down ALL the trees in the Great Smokies National Park, would folks be screaming for blood? You bet they would).
We had some money stolen out of our savings account last year. My wife discovered it one night innocently checking our balance to make sure a deposit had cleared. Let me tell you one thing: I *DID* want to kill the person who make my wife feel scared like she did for that first week. True, that was not a spammer, but again, I shall emphasize: THEY ARE ALL THE SAME - spammers, phishers, identity thieves, etc.