Mods one here are morons. Get a sense of humour assholes. Diagreeing with my spam post doesn't mean I was trolling here. This is why/. has gone so far downhill. The quality of the comments and the moderation is shit.
~ M
Re:I can't believe rational people support this...
on
HOWTO: Annoy a Spammer
·
· Score: 1
{{No, it isn't. The items being delivered are being created anyway, whether Mr. Ralsky gets them or not. If Mr. Ralsky sends them to the landfill, then one can argue that it's actually doing environmental good, as it will be taking surplus carbon from the environment, which will offset the burning of a similar amount of fossil fuels.}}
Nope, sorry. The items being created are not being created anyways. This is the fallacy of production, also known as the fallacy of no mass effect. If, for example, I decide to be a vegetarian because I want fewer animals to die, and you say "but the production will remain unchanged", you are committing this fallacy. See if you can spot how it applies here.
{{Since you don't know what he's receiving, you don't know how he was signed up. I've seen lots of sign ups that say "tell a friend".}}
I am 99% sure that the/. community is not being particularly sensitive to the legal nuances here. I am certain he is being signed up for all sorts of mail fraudulently. Furthermore, it is still illegal to use the mail service to harrass people, in case you did not know that.
{{This is an absurd comparison in the extreme. It is nothing like the theft of bandwidth, because nothing is being stolen. In case you hadn't noticed, the companies that are sending their marketing materials are doing so because they want to. If they didn't want to send their products, they wouldn't. Spam victims have no such option.}}
They are sending them on the pretense that the person on the other end has requested the information. That is stealing their resources to aid your campaign. This doesn't even mention the postal workers and the public postal service illegaly drafted into this campaign. In the spam case, the companies know they are spamming. They pay for it. Big difference.
{{No, it isn't. He's now on the recieving end of exactly what I (and many others) go through each and every day. He (and people like him) have made email useless for many people.}}
Oh do relax. Nobodies email has been made "useless" lol. What a crock. Overhyping the impact of Ralsky's spam does nothing to enhance your credibility.
{{Yes, it is pretty, it is effective. Whether it's ethical or not is beside the point, as your own quote says:
So long as money can be made in this entirely legal business, no matter how annoying it is, there will always be someone who spams.
So long as satisfaction can be had with this entirely leagal endeavour, we will keep doing it. }}
Reading comprehension 101 please. My quote did not indicate that I approved of unethical behaviour. My quote stated a fact--spammers will continue to spam until it is made illegal. The endevour you are getting satisfaction from is illegal, and moreover it is wrong. It is also ineffective, but that doesn't seem to matter to you. All that matters is your little bit of satisfaction. That is the essence of criminal behaviour, you know--overriding others' legal rights for your own satisfaction/gain.
They would all be summarily dismissed, with costs to the defendant, and you would all be held in contempt of court and fined. He may even get punitive damages awarded against you, and would at the very least be able to counter-sue each and every one of you for an abuse of process tort. So you'd all be bankrupt and you'd enrich him. Good plan.
And yes, I am a lawyer. So sue me (even though you'd lose).
~ M
Re:I can't believe rational people support this...
on
HOWTO: Annoy a Spammer
·
· Score: 1
Actually it is necessary to impersonate someone to sign them up to 99% of mail lists. I am ever-so-sure the/. community is taking great pains to make this nice and legal though.
As for the paper mail "spammers", most of them will ONLY sign you onto lists you specifically request. They don't want spend too many resources hitting advertising targets that are uninterested, so try not to. That's why you all have to SIGN RALKSY UP. See the difference? And if you don't want to shed tears for the companies, how about the postal workers? Did they agree to be a part of your little campaign? Did they agree to work harder so your ineffective little gong show could make you feel a bit better? No, they didn't.
Next, you realize Ralksy is not committing a tort, right? You understand that don't you? So you understand that any vigilante justice you may perpetrate in response makes you not only a tortfeasor yourself but also a criminal, right? And you do realize the word "perp" is never used to identify defendants in civil actions and that using it here makes you sound like a try-hard who wants to make us all think you know something about the law when in fact you do not... right?
As for his service being legal, your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. His service is entirely legal so long as he conforms to the guidelines in place for each ISP he uses. If he doesn't they can disconnect him. If they find him fraudulently using their service, they can file an action against him. Either way it's not up to you.
You are an idiot. You're entire argument comes down to "he does it, so we can too". You ignore the fact that you are doing something illegal while he is not, you are wasting the resources of companies and the postal service fraudulently while he is not, your campaign will be utterly ineffective while his spam is surely not (he is rich, you are not), and that disabling someone's physical mail service is a disproportionate response to having to click a button a few times a day.
I directed my comments at rational people. You are not one. And to the mod who labelled this a troll post, remember that even nerds can sometimes disagree without being disagreeable. If you don't agree with what I had to say, then argue with me, but don't just label me a troll because you don't like what I said. People who don't appreciate the vast efforts that are being taken wasted and used in a fradulent and illegal way must be trolls? Get a grip.
I do hope that the next research project taken on in the free time of someone with too much of it on their hands explains the social psychology behind the phenomenon that is Hulkamania. Calculating exact levels of Hulkamania as a function of steroid use, beard colour, ring attire, time since last retirement, crowd age and location, federation, current wrestling allies, manager, and orange tint of leathery outer Hulk shell would be most informative.
However, I fear we may need someone from Cambridge or Harvard. The math promises to be very complex, and should not be attempted by Stanford students students unless carefully supervised.;)
Oh do shut up. Nobody is curing cancer here, dingus.
~ m
I can't believe rational people support this...
on
HOWTO: Annoy a Spammer
·
· Score: 1, Troll
This physical reverse spamming is really the ultimate in passive-aggressiveness, and should not be supported.
Look, I recognize that Ralsky might not be someone you'd invite to dinner. I recognize that spam is annoying. I fully realize that it is unsolicited garbage.
But come on people... it is not yet illegal, and nobody has any right to interfere with this guy's physical mail service because they are so upset about clicking "delete" on messages they don't want. By sending him tonnes of physical mail, nothing is accomplished. Not only that, there are many downsides. To wit:
1. It is environmentally irresponsible in the extreme. All that paper is being wasted because you don't like clicking a mouse 20 more times a day? Seems more than a little selfish.
2. It is in fact illegal. Impersonating someone else in order to sign them up to receive mail is mail fraud.
3. It is a waste of the time and resources of the companies that send out the spam and the people who have to deliver it. Ever think of them? Why should the reverse spammers have the right to use companies' resources and the resources of the public postal service to further their own agenda? Isn't this just what you accuse Ralsky of doing when he "steals bandwidth"?
4. It is a disproportionate response. Because you have to delete some emails each day that takes you all of a few minutes, the appropriate response is to totally shut down one particular spammer's ability to read his own relevant physical mail by ensuring he must sift through thousands of pieces each day? That is absurd.
5. It is totally ineffective. If you have a complaint about receiving spam, take it up with your elected officials. THEY are the ones to stop it. So long as money can be made in this entirely legal business, no matter how annoying it is, there will always be someone who spams. If not Ralsky, then someone else. So even stopping Ralsky (which this surely will not do) does nothing to stop spam, because there will always be someone to deliver a message that a company is paying to have delivered.
And finally, about the comments regarding the "spammer's lawyer" being some low form of life, just remember that everyone in free nations under the rule of law has the right to legal representation. If we ever get to a point in our society where an individual's right to be heard in court (and make no mistake, you cannot effectively represent yourself in court) is judged in advance by the public on the moral value we perceive their case to have, then I don't want to be living in that society.
So to sum, get off your soapboxes and high horses before you all break your necks. This isn't pretty, it isn't effective, and it isn't ethical, no matter how much you may titter away at seeing someone you dislike punished.
Slashdot Mirror
Mods one here are morons. Get a sense of humour assholes. Diagreeing with my spam post doesn't mean I was trolling here. This is why /. has gone so far downhill. The quality of the comments and the moderation is shit.
~ M
Want to bet?
~ M
{{No, it isn't. The items being delivered are being created anyway, whether Mr. Ralsky gets them or not. If Mr. Ralsky sends them to the landfill, then one can argue that it's actually doing environmental good, as it will be taking surplus carbon from the environment, which will offset the burning of a similar amount of fossil fuels.}}
/. community is not being particularly sensitive to the legal nuances here. I am certain he is being signed up for all
Nope, sorry. The items being created are not being created anyways. This is the fallacy of production, also known as the fallacy of no mass effect. If, for example, I decide to be a vegetarian because I want fewer animals to die, and you say "but the production will remain unchanged", you are committing this fallacy. See if you can spot how it applies here.
{{Since you don't know what he's receiving, you don't know how he was signed up. I've seen lots of sign ups that say "tell a friend".}}
I am 99% sure that the
sorts of mail fraudulently. Furthermore, it is still illegal to use the mail service to harrass people, in case you did not know that.
{{This is an absurd comparison in the extreme. It is nothing like the theft of bandwidth, because nothing is being stolen. In case you hadn't noticed, the companies that are sending their marketing materials are doing so because they want to. If they didn't want to send their products, they wouldn't. Spam victims have no such option.}}
They are sending them on the pretense that the person on the other end has requested the information. That is stealing their resources to aid your campaign. This doesn't even mention the postal workers and the public postal service illegaly drafted into this campaign. In the spam case, the companies know they are spamming. They pay for it. Big difference.
{{No, it isn't. He's now on the recieving end of exactly what I (and many others) go through each and every day. He (and people like him) have made email useless for many people.}}
Oh do relax. Nobodies email has been made "useless" lol. What a crock. Overhyping the impact of Ralsky's spam does nothing to enhance your credibility.
{{Yes, it is pretty, it is effective. Whether it's ethical or not is beside the point, as your own quote says:
So long as money can be made in this entirely legal business, no matter how annoying it is, there will always be someone who spams.
So long as satisfaction can be had with this entirely leagal endeavour, we will keep doing it.
}}
Reading comprehension 101 please. My quote did not indicate that I approved of unethical behaviour. My quote stated a fact--spammers will continue to spam until it is made illegal. The endevour you are getting satisfaction from is illegal, and moreover it is wrong. It is also ineffective, but that doesn't seem to matter to you. All that matters is your little bit of satisfaction. That is the essence of criminal behaviour, you know--overriding others' legal rights for your own satisfaction/gain.
~ M
Good plan. Let's all commit crimes to shut down a legal annoyance when 10 more are lined up to take his place. ~ M
They would all be summarily dismissed, with costs to the defendant, and you would all be held in contempt of court and fined. He may even get punitive damages awarded against you, and would at the very least be able to counter-sue each and every one of you for an abuse of process tort. So you'd all be bankrupt and you'd enrich him. Good plan.
And yes, I am a lawyer. So sue me (even though you'd lose).
~ M
As for the paper mail "spammers", most of them will ONLY sign you onto lists you specifically request. They don't want spend too many resources hitting advertising targets that are uninterested, so try not to. That's why you all have to SIGN RALKSY UP. See the difference? And if you don't want to shed tears for the companies, how about the postal workers? Did they agree to be a part of your little campaign? Did they agree to work harder so your ineffective little gong show could make you feel a bit better? No, they didn't.
Next, you realize Ralksy is not committing a tort, right? You understand that don't you? So you understand that any vigilante justice you may perpetrate in response makes you not only a tortfeasor yourself but also a criminal, right? And you do realize the word "perp" is never used to identify defendants in civil actions and that using it here makes you sound like a try-hard who wants to make us all think you know something about the law when in fact you do not ... right?
As for his service being legal, your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. His service is entirely legal so long as he conforms to the guidelines in place for each ISP he uses. If he doesn't they can disconnect him. If they find him fraudulently using their service, they can file an action against him. Either way it's not up to you.
~ M
I directed my comments at rational people. You are not one. And to the mod who labelled this a troll post, remember that even nerds can sometimes disagree without being disagreeable. If you don't agree with what I had to say, then argue with me, but don't just label me a troll because you don't like what I said. People who don't appreciate the vast efforts that are being taken wasted and used in a fradulent and illegal way must be trolls? Get a grip.
~ M
I do hope that the next research project taken on in the free time of someone with too much of it on their hands explains the social psychology behind the phenomenon that is Hulkamania. Calculating exact levels of Hulkamania as a function of steroid use, beard colour, ring attire, time since last retirement, crowd age and location, federation, current wrestling allies, manager, and orange tint of leathery outer Hulk shell would be most informative.
;)
However, I fear we may need someone from Cambridge or Harvard. The math promises to be very complex, and should not be attempted by Stanford students students unless carefully supervised.
~ m
Oh do shut up. Nobody is curing cancer here, dingus.
~ m
This physical reverse spamming is really the ultimate in passive-aggressiveness, and should not be supported.
... it is not yet illegal, and nobody has any right to interfere with this guy's physical mail service because they are so upset about clicking "delete" on messages they don't want. By sending him tonnes of physical mail, nothing is accomplished. Not only that, there are many downsides. To wit:
Look, I recognize that Ralsky might not be someone you'd invite to dinner. I recognize that spam is annoying. I fully realize that it is unsolicited garbage.
But come on people
1. It is environmentally irresponsible in the extreme. All that paper is being wasted because you don't like clicking a mouse 20 more times a day? Seems more than a little selfish.
2. It is in fact illegal. Impersonating someone else in order to sign them up to receive mail is mail fraud.
3. It is a waste of the time and resources of the companies that send out the spam and the people who have to deliver it. Ever think of them? Why should the reverse spammers have the right to use companies' resources and the resources of the public postal service to further their own agenda? Isn't this just what you accuse Ralsky of doing when he "steals bandwidth"?
4. It is a disproportionate response. Because you have to delete some emails each day that takes you all of a few minutes, the appropriate response is to totally shut down one particular spammer's ability to read his own relevant physical mail by ensuring he must sift through thousands of pieces each day? That is absurd.
5. It is totally ineffective. If you have a complaint about receiving spam, take it up with your elected officials. THEY are the ones to stop it. So long as money can be made in this entirely legal business, no matter how annoying it is, there will always be someone who spams. If not Ralsky, then someone else. So even stopping Ralsky (which this surely will not do) does nothing to stop spam, because there will always be someone to deliver a message that a company is paying to have delivered.
And finally, about the comments regarding the "spammer's lawyer" being some low form of life, just remember that everyone in free nations under the rule of law has the right to legal representation. If we ever get to a point in our society where an individual's right to be heard in court (and make no mistake, you cannot effectively represent yourself in court) is judged in advance by the public on the moral value we perceive their case to have, then I don't want to be living in that society.
So to sum, get off your soapboxes and high horses before you all break your necks. This isn't pretty, it isn't effective, and it isn't ethical, no matter how much you may titter away at seeing someone you dislike punished.
~ M