newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
| Ronnie . . . you're too modest
quote:
. . . he was "probably the most hated person in this room."
I'm sure there is a whole lot more than a room full of people that hate you, Ronnie. But . . . if you give us your address, maybe we'll send you some "love" notes.
--
The Rules of Spam | Maryland's New Anti-Spam Law
Where are we going? And what's with the hand basket? |
|
Logan 5
Wondering what happens next..
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-25
The WasteLAN
 ·Pacific Bell - SBC
| And Ronald says......
"Ronald is an eighth-grade dropout and self-taught computer programmer from Louisiana who makes a killing off of irritating the hell out of others"
and this golden nugget: "This is censorship", claims Scelson, who claims anti-spam vigilantes block customers from getting all of their e-mail. "People still buy this stuff".....*sure* they do Ronald....and Tanya Harding will be the first female President of the United States of America.
Crap is as crap does......especially when you look as foolish as a certain *other* Ronald who also happens to be a Clown. |
|
Im not here
@Dial1.Chica
 from:
mr sean 
| Reagan? |
|
Logan 5
Wondering what happens next..
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-25
The WasteLAN |  Close, but I was referring to McDonald, but I can see how you might mistake the two.  |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | "Ronald Scelson"
If I were writing a short story, and I had to pick a name that sounded as "loserish" as possible...
"Ronald Scelson" might fit the bill.  |
|
bokamba
Chengdu Rocks
Premium
join:2002-04-05
Falls Church, VA
·Verizon Online DSL
| The Congress is too slow on this
Can't Congress see that the $10 billion (at least) that spam costs companies per year is more than whatever money the spammers earn and pay taxes on? This guy seems to think that he there is a constitutional right to run a business unregulated. No! Spam is commercial speech, and is thus subject to regulation. |
|
Cheetah9
join:2001-01-07
Bethel Park, PA
|  There is NO WAY to JUSTIFY SPAM !!!!
There is NO WAY anyone can justify SPAM !! PERIOD!
Spamers are simply getting a free ride, at the expense of the legitimate Internet community. And at the expense of the Internet infrastructure in general.
SPAM costs legitimate users and businesses millions of dollars, maybe even billions, each year. And it's getting worse!
Anything that can be done to end the free ride for these GREEDY FREELOADERS needs to be done. |
|
mrchris
We don't miss you Bush
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | Taste the annoyance of spam
You deserve it Ronnie, especially when sending unwanted email to people who don't want your crap. Now you see how annoying spam is eh? |
|
GTaylor
Premium
join:2002-12-14
Frisco, TX
clubs:
| What's worse - his spam or him being unapologetic
What a POS - And that pic! Ugh - dude, take some of your blood money and get some dental work!
Personally I love it when a Spammer has a holier than thou attitude - especially when testifying in front of Congress. Go ahead spammers, flaunt your attitude and see if a tough Anti-Spam legislation isn't passed by the end of the year.
Give Congress a "bad guy" to go after and they'll make you an example... |
|
Orwell 1984
@rr.com
| reply to Logan 5
Re: And Ronald says......
120 million emails in 12 hours.If one one thousandth of one pecent buy the product thats 10 sales per hour. I still hate spam and the people who send it.It really is a shame this is one of the biggest (next to adult content) money makers on the internet. |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
|  Poor Twisted Ronnie (just like the Metallica tune)
Everyone knows spam is evil and annoying and costs business' untold millions in lost revenue, yadda yadda. That is the conventional argument I've heard so far. I'm not definding spammers but a thinking person has got to ask questions like where are the members of the golden parachute club that are presumably running these companies that are allegedly losing money to spam.
Why aren't they front & center with Congre$$ buying off a politician or ten or so to get leglislation passed to stop the spam. They buy off a pet politician to get all of their other special interests passed (DMCA, Super-DMCA, etc.) what makes spam any different? Where are the lobbyists to wine & dine these politicians who are supposed to represent America but in reality only represent those who cut the biggest payoffs to them. It doesn't seem to be happening so spam apparently is not that big of an issue for these companies. The only complainers who are screaming the loudest are everyday people.
As annoying as spam is I don't believe for one nano-second that it costs "untold millions in yearly business revenue." That's what the feds said about Mitnick's adventures in hacking and the reality of that situation was that he never made a nickel on any of his hacks. It was all so much BS created by the companies as payback, but I digress.
If spam is so bad and loses so much revenue, then why aren't these CEO types paying off politicians to make it stop.
--
Jack Kevorkian for White House Physician.
»www.digitalconsumer.org
[text was edited by author 2003-05-22 20:19:49] |
|
lswinney
join:2002-09-02
Pasadena, TX | reply to Logan 5
Re: And Ronald says......
No doubt you purposely left out the biggest clowns of all. The Clinton/Gore Comedy Troup. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Let's do as they do in Utah
Utah is currently assembling a firing squad to do executions... perhaps they could do us all a favor and take care of this spammer |
|
rmdir
join:2003-03-13
Chicago, IL | A room full of buttheads
that's saying something, when you are in a room full of Senators and you are the most hated person there. |
|
BiG_Lou
join:2003-04-20
Yonkers, NY
| interesting...
Well I think we can all agree that spam is annoying, but I don't know about illegal...Think of all the junk mail (REAL mail, mind you) that we get. Do we go after these companies for sending us junk mail? E-mail is computer based mail. I personally don't think it should have any different regulations from real-life mail. Not that I don't find spam the most annoying thing online, but if I felt that, say, all Texans (randomly selected...don't kick me with your spurs, please!) were annoying, does that give me the right to make a law and get rid of them? Personally, I would like to see Congre$$ force all spam companies to actually remove me from their mailing lists within 24 hrs of my request. I have tried many times, but I have repeatedly recieved the same emails over and over again. This, I feel is harassment, which IS against the law. I would love to see companies shut down for this type of harassment...maybe that would send a message to other companies involved in spamming operations. Hopefully, this will be resolved soon so that we might actually see a slowdown of spam (hey I can dream, can't I?) |
|
Sedated3
Shooting Rubberbands At The Stars
Premium
join:2002-11-02
Brooklyn, NY
clubs:
| reply to GTaylor
Re: What's worse - his spam or him being unapologetic
said by GTaylor :
... Give Congress a "bad guy" to go after and they'll make you an example...
said by Washington_Post:
Scelson, who said he does not distribute mail containing pornography, said one of his biggest clients sells a package of anti-virus computer software called Norton SystemWorks at cut-rate prices.
Officials at Symantec Inc., which makes the Norton software, said in an interview that although they have not seen the package Scelson's client is selling, other similar offers that they have tracked down have proved to be counterfeit.
Give a large corporation a "bad guy" to go after, and hopefully they'll also make you an example...
Ronnie, you're on a winning streak. Don't stop.
--
Best Regards,Sed[ Verizon aDSL:1500/128 @ $29.99! / 1792/160 Sync! / 1515/136 Solid Speed! Ride The Copper! ] |
|
Sedated3
Shooting Rubberbands At The Stars
Premium
join:2002-11-02
Brooklyn, NY
clubs:
| reply to BiG_Lou
Re: interesting...
said by BiG_Lou :
Well I think we can all agree that spam is annoying, but I don't know about illegal...Think of all the junk mail (REAL mail, mind you) that we get. Do we go after these companies for sending us junk mail?
Yes:
• If the party which is doing the mailing victimizes a third party by forcing the bulk mailing costs to be paid by them, or worse reverses the charges and forces you to pay for their postage which is in effect what takes place with spam.
• Yes if the party mailing out UCE stiffs a "carrier" for the costs of delivering all their mail, OR flood the USPS system to the point where it has difficulty of maintaining the flow of valid mail.
• YES if the third party uses envolopes which lead you to believe that the mail is coming from your relative or friend or otherwise fraudulently modifies the envelope, which is almost always the case with online spam.
I guess you've got to be on the other end and pay for hosting or transit to see how much bulk email can cost you.. It's really not a victimless game. As someone pointed out, it's costing individuals, corporations, networks and educational institutions, let alone the Government billions of dollars a year.
SOMEONE has to pay for traffic just as SOMEONE has to pay for postage.
Cheers,
Sed
--
Best Regards,Sed[ Verizon aDSL:1500/128 @ $29.99! / 1792/160 Sync! / 1515/136 Solid Speed! Ride The Copper! ] |
|
keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA
 ·Teliax VOIP
 ·WestPAnet Inc.
 ·WestPAnet Inc. CA..
| reply to BiG_Lou
There really is a difference between spam email and junk snail mail. The snail mail costs the sender money. Snail mail is also usable because of these. The amount of junk mail makes it easier to deal with and does not seem to be growing much, because it costs money. Spam email costs the person receiving the email money. The spammer must pay for a little equipment and an internet connection but the receiver is paying money to there provider to prevent spam. This prevention is required to keep email usable.
The government getting involved will hopefully make it more regulated and have limititations on what they can do. My Grandma opening her email and being blasted with a large penis in her email should not be legal. Massive amounts of email that impact mail servers should not be legal. And opt-in opt-out should be valid. The people making money advertising can be okay if it was more reasonable and cleaner (cleaner I mean ligit sales, no false advertising).
The US laws are not valid everywhere. Spammers moving to Sweden is something we do not want. These guys are making really good money and do not plan to give that up easily.
A combination of technology and regulation will make spam email manageable like regular snail junk mail is now. |
|
mikeyman
Premium
join:2002-11-11
Bakersfield, CA
| reply to BiG_Lou
Actually Spam is nothing like junk mail that you get in your mailbox. Home addresses are public as is phone numbers. However email addresses are not public. You have to give out your email address or a company that has your email address sells it to spam companies. It seems to me that it should be a violation of privacy for a company to sell your email address to someone. Thats probably one way to kill spam is to find out whose selling the email addresses and fine them. I never gave out my email address to receive any type of mailing lits and I'm getting tons of emails about penial enlargers, viagra and for porn sites. What if this email address is someone who is not 18 years old? Thats my 2 cents!
[text was edited by author 2003-05-22 21:47:51] |
|
puritan
@fuse.net | reply to Sedated3
Good reply Sed.
Internet spam is damaging because we, as the unsolicited receiving companies, have to increase bandwidth and server storage just to filter and delete the crap. And that comes out of our pockets, not the spammer.
puritan |
|
