Searching \ for '[OT] Professional Complainers' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: techref.massmind.org/techref/index.htm?key=professional+complainers
Search entire site for: 'Professional Complainers'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Professional Complainers'
2000\04\25@121415 by Peter Crowcroft

flavicon
face
>From:    "M. Adam Davis" <spam_OUTadavisTakeThisOuTspamUBASICS.COM>
>Subject: Re: Perhaps a Peaceful Ending? [OT]
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Todd, it is difficult for me to broach this subject without being angry.
When
>people use the internet without understanding how to use it appropiately I'm
>torn between two reactions:  Assuming that they really have no clue about
what
>they are doing, or assuming they do know, and they just don't care.


I suggest that if some messages make you angry then you just PgDn or
Ctrl-D, and move on rather than wasting your time composing such missives
and just contributing zero information to the List.

You know I think some people just lurk here waiting to pounce on people
they view as having transcended the 'rules'. You must have spent 30-40
minutes typing that email. I hope it was cathartic for you.

Comments:

1. I get about 40 emails a day. 10-15 daily are spam. They are easy to
recognise. It takes 1 sec at most to Ctrl-D each one and move on.

2. Norton 2000 stops all virus's cold. Press enter and move on.

3. I think Todd has made similar broad mailings before. I was interested in
them, read them and filed them. They were electronics-related after all. I
certainly did not view them as Spam.

4. Other people routinely post completely OT items to this list but do so
without censure and which happen to get ME angry - but I PgDn and move on.
Russell last put in a message about religion last friday and typically ends
his messages with easttimor.com and starving kids. Well having been in E.
Timor at the time of the 1975 coup, having 'hunted' the locals in Rhodesia
in 1978 and worked in Indonesia bribing my way around for 2 years I get
rather hot when I read such pleas from distant, green New Zealand by a
person who has  never been to these places. But I rapidly hit the PgDn and
move on. I am to busy to worry about such things.

(All do-gooders should read 'Deliver us from Evil', William Shawcross,
2000. His latest book.)


>You sent a mass mailing, which very few of us solicited you for.  You can
take
>the issue, twist it around, make it sound like you are a reputable company
which
>misjudged your potential customers, but the reality is very different.
You say,
>"Honestly, we've had so many PIClisters request to be notified as new IC's
are
>released that I didn't consider it to be spamming at all."  By putting it
that
>way you make it sound like spam is a subjective judgement.  It is not.  There
>are hard and fast rules that you can apply to your actions which judge
whether
>it is spam or not.  It would be interesting to know what you meant by "so
many
>PIClisters".


'Anal obsession' comes into my head from Psych 101 many years ago.



>Todd, if this is your understanding of how the internet works, you do not
>deserve to be hosted by any reputable hosting company.  I am reporting your
>misuse to NETINS.NET and CW.NET.  CW.NET has a more verbose acceptable use
>policy, you might be interesting in reading it as well, though it only
applies
>to NETINS (they are under fire from CW for allowing you to send your mail).
>http://www.cwusa.com/internet_aup.htm


You are 'perseverating'. These actions if you did in fact do them I view as
stupid, small-minded and out of all proportion to the 'offence'. Ranting to
the List is a waste of time.


>While you have not contributed much to the piclist, I would encourage you to

Oh! Are there two classes of people on the PIClist?



>I do not wish to offend you in this email, and I hope it is informative
rather
>than inflamatory.  I needed to get this off my chest.


Todd might not have been but I am. I too hope this 'is informative rather
than inflamatory'.



To OTHER MATTERS:

1. The chap complaining about P16PRO programmer not working was building a
programmer from scratch. He did not buy a kit from me. However, I
understand he has now purchased a kit 96 from one of my USA importers.


2. ZIP backups. As I mentioned a week ago do NOT use 100MB or 250MB iomega
ZIP ddrives for storage. Mine crashed last week. This fault is evidently
well known. Search yahoo for 'click death zip' and you will find 10's of
websites devoted to the problem and class-action suit against the
manufacturer.  My 6.3GB using Norton Ghost partition-to-image complete
backup is running perfectly.


regards,

Peter Crowcroft
                   DIY Electronics (HK) Ltd
               PO Box 88458, Sham Shui Po, Hong Kong
Voice: 852-2720 0255   Fax: 852-2725 0610    Web:  http://kitsrus.com
  Email: .....peterKILLspamspam@spam@kitsrus.com          Email:diykitspamKILLspampacific.net.hk

----------------------------------------------------------------------

2000\04\25@130502 by Dan Michaels

flavicon
face
Peter wrote:
........
>
>I suggest that if some messages make you angry then you just PgDn or
>Ctrl-D, and move on rather than wasting your time composing such missives
>and just contributing zero information to the List.
>
.........

Ditto. When I read the daily e-mail, I just keep the ole cursor over
the ole thrash can. Read 1st two words, then "click". Got too
many grey hairs already. ["too old to flame, too young to die",
I guess].

2000\04\25@151009 by Mark Willis

flavicon
face
Dan Michaels wrote:
> Peter wrote:
> ........
> >
> >I suggest that if some messages make you angry then you just PgDn or
> >Ctrl-D, and move on rather than wasting your time composing such missives
> >and just contributing zero information to the List.
> >
> .........
>
> Ditto. When I read the daily e-mail, I just keep the ole cursor over
> the ole thrash can. Read 1st two words, then "click". Got too
> many grey hairs already. ["too old to flame, too young to die",
> I guess].

The good thing is, you guys aren't Buying anything from Spammers -
That's a very very good start.

The bad part is, you haven't done the math - Here's the second part of
the puzzle.  Do the math, guys.  If it doesn't spook you, I don't know
what to say...

Let's say spamming becomes a much more common business method of
advertising.  With ~25 million businesses in the USA as of last year
(probably low, with all the home businesses out there), let's say only
25% of those decided to spam you, and they ONLY sent one e-mail to you,
each YEAR.  (Trying to be really really conservative - Most Spammers
send you 2-10 a DAY, but these numbers speak for themselves at one
yearly - we'd definitely see other countries "contribute", etc., but
this gives you a good idea...  I think these are pretty durn
conservative numbers of what WOULD happen if Spam was totally legal and
commonly used.)

On average, you would receive about (25 million / 365.25 / 4) = 17,112
SPAM messages daily.  You're on the PICList and USED to getting 650
messages a day, Sparky?  Well, think of that increased by ~26 times, so
your 3Mb mailbox overflows in 30 minutes or so, i.e. about as fast as
you can empty it, if you do NOTHING else with your time and are "a good
little consumer"...  (Most SPAM are far larger than most PICList
posts.)  That's every abuse desk in the world's worst nightmare, and
every Spammers' dream.  Your solution of "just hit delete" just doesn't
SCALE!  Maybe I should buy Keytronics stock and suggest they sell a
keyboard with 10 extra quick-change keyswitches for the delete key...
Naah, that's only a 10-day supply of Delete key keyswitches =)

This'd QUITE effectively destroy e-mail as a *personal* communications
medium, making it useless for all purposes (Unless you subscribe to The
Advertisement Channel on your local Cable TV lineup - probably a
Pay-Per-View thing <G>);  As a side effect, all current e-mail servers
in the world would quite literally grind to a stop in about 5 minutes
(Talk to some Abuse Desk people - ask how common this is today with the
relatively "low" loads of SPAM they already get.  Too common.)  I'd be
off the 'Net in a day, myself, if I cannot USE e-mail effectively,
forget it.

Added bonuses:  If you're in Europe or most other parts of the world,
well, you have the money to dedicate a leased line to your Internet
connect, so you can receive all that SPAM, right?  And if in the US, you
have a line dedicated to Internet connection, right?  And you can spend
hours a day, "just hitting delete", Sure, you don't have a personal life
<Ha!>

Too: You DO like just paying low numbers for your ISP account, right?
If this happens, expect to PAY for receiving 32,500 SPAM daily, say $125
a month, maybe $500 a month or more;  no more free e-mail accounts,
period.  No $15 a month accounts either.

The incremental cost of sending is negligible, that's why "spam is
sent postage due" is said so often by those who've done this math.
Spammers quite commonly steal a Credit Card to get their access to the
Internet - or use a free AOL account, often enough.  They're not
contributing money to your ISP or any other ISP, typically, well, guess
who's paying?  TANSTAAFL...

Fortunately, in reality, at this time - Given the low counts of SPAM we
all get (well, say 20 as compared to 12k messages per day), it's pretty
darn obvious that, *Reputable companies DO NOT SPAM*.  Some might be led
astray by a liar, that happens;  So long as they learn and quit, which
will only happen *because* someone writes a complaint e-mail that get's
their ISP to tell them to behave, the Internet will survive the
occasional problem.  (Mike Lyman of the MicroSoft abuse desk, has had to
do some serious educating inside of MicroSoft to keep various brain-dead
section of that company behaving - "It's free and technically feasible"
NEVER guarantees that it's ethical, legal, or a good idea, and some
people don't GET it initially.  Yes, someone CAN steal from a baby or
burglarize someone's house while they're out - doing so isn't RIGHT.)

Reputable companies use these ways to empower potential customers to
find them:  They join mailing lists and just post periodically to those
lists, behaving and keeping within the list's charter (as well as
posting to help list members!);  They set up good, clean web pages and
register them with search engines so people can look for and FIND their
pages;  and they perhaps post to UseNet.  The whole idea of the Internet
is for you to be able to search for, and find, what you want - same as
in a Library.

The Internet's about empowering US, not empowering some twits to make
money off us.  Let's keep that in mind.

 Mark

2000\04\25@191404 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
>    The Internet's about empowering US, not empowering some twits to make
>    money off us.  Let's keep that in mind.

If you DO keep that in mind, you have to be very careful about drawing the
dividing line in between the "twits" and "us."  Most of your tirade would
not have applied to elab cause they didn't send out their message, however
annoying it and it's delivery methodology might have been, 2-10 times a day
to everyone, everywhere.


   This'd QUITE effectively destroy e-mail as a *personal* communications
   medium, making it useless for all purposes

It'd probably destroy the net as a whole, but it won't happen.  The
technology exists NOW to stop it (or most of it, anyway) at the inbound
ISPs.  Right now, everyone wants to get rich being an ISP, so there are many
ISPs that are a bit lax on restricting their customer's tendancies to abuse
the current properties of the net.  In time, however, I think the world will
divide into ISPs that you can trust not to originate spam, and ISPs that
specically allow spam to be originated, and charge for the privilige (but no
one accepts mail from them, anyway.)

BillW

2000\04\25@192848 by l.allen

picon face
U

> >    The Internet's about empowering US, not empowering some twits to make
> >    money off us.  Let's keep that in mind.
>
The bible says that the love a money is a root of all evil.

Money is the problem here, like those sick minded scum
of the earth who have deceptive web names aimed at
children that really direct to porno sites because the
advertisers pay out on hits. We have been caught on this.

I guess some people (governments too) will do anything
for money so a financial penalty is the the only thing that
will get their attention.
_____________________________

Lance Allen
Technical Officer
Uni of Auckland
Psych Dept
New Zealand

http://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz

_____________________________

2000\04\25@202606 by Dale Botkin

flavicon
face
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, William Chops Westfield wrote:

> It'd probably destroy the net as a whole, but it won't happen.  The
> technology exists NOW to stop it (or most of it, anyway) at the inbound
> ISPs.  Right now, everyone wants to get rich being an ISP, so there are many
> ISPs that are a bit lax on restricting their customer's tendancies to abuse
> the current properties of the net.

Bill,

I just have to speak a bit on this one.  I used to *be* an ISP.  We had an
iron-clad, no-exceptions no-SPAM policy that applied equally to everyone,
without exceptions.

So imagine my utter horror when one of my good customers casually tells me
he's been regularly sending a few thousand blatant SPAMs per night, and
USING MY MODEMS to do it!  I was in shock.  We had never had a single
complaint, ever, from anyone.  We didn't even know it was going on.  He
was using SPAMming software that sent the emails via other servers, never
touching ours, and so completely hiding his identity and the mail's
origins that not one person ever figured it out.

Naturally, I wade it quite clear that he was not to ever send another
single bit of UCE via our system.  He was also using two other local ISPs,
so this was no great inconvenience to him -- they didn't care, as long as
he paid his bills and they didn't get complaints. My point is that we
never knew it was going on -- and we were *good*.  I ran a highly
technically competent operation (which unfortuately sucked at marketing
and sales, as is often the case).  My sysadmin and I were both on top of
what was going on; we kept close watch on our own servers, vigorously
pursued SPAMmers, and were very dedicated to making the 'Net at large a
better place to be.

The technology to block SPAM at its origin is far from effective.  I can
stop people from sending SPAM through *my* server, but I can't prevent
them from using one that some moron in Lower Slobovia has misconfigured --
and there are THOUSANDS of them, most of which are not run by ISPs. Once a
person's on the net, there is really no way to provide Internet service
AND regulate what they do.

I've also invested a lot of time in building an anti-SPAM filter for my
incoming server at home.  So far I have a ~300 line Procmail filter, along
with an extensive (2100++ lines) deny list, RBL and about every other
anti-SPAM method I can find.  All together it's about 50% effective.

Granted, some operations make it a lot easier on the SPAMmers.  Giving
away easily abused free accounts without verification, that sort of thing.
But even if you block the known SPAM originating sites, the only way to
stop SPAMmers is to burn 'em at the stake.

Dale
---
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..."
               -- Isaac Asimov

2000\04\25@202820 by Mark Willis

flavicon
face
William Chops Westfield wrote:
> >    The Internet's about empowering US, not empowering some twits to make
> >    money off us.  Let's keep that in mind.
>
> If you DO keep that in mind, you have to be very careful about drawing the
> dividing line in between the "twits" and "us."  Most of your tirade would
> not have applied to elab cause they didn't send out their message, however
> annoying it and it's delivery methodology might have been, 2-10 times a day
> to everyone, everywhere.

Tirade?  I thought those were rather Educational facts I posted -
Correct my numbers if you find 'em wrong, but "You ain't seen a tirade
from me, yet!" <G>

Unsolicited Bulk is Unsolicited Bulk.  My example was just once a year,
1/4 of all co's - You saw the numbers that that implies, and you know
that most reputable co's don't spam.  And that most Spammers, "send bulk
till their ISP's modem bleeds"...

The consequences are pretty darn plain, methinks, of thinking "Spam is
OK in any shape, way, or form."  IMO, a twit's someone who sends me
bulk, unsolicited e-mail, commercial or not;  Many say far worse names
<G>  I don't mind personal one-on-one non-bulk contacts at all;  I don't
enjoy having robots spew unsolicited e-mail at me, though. (Easy to tell
the difference, too.  I get unsolicited personal e-mail all the time -
some pretty neat ones, too.  Those offer me choices and ask questions.)

IMO a large part of this is about CONSENT and ETHICS.  I didn't give
eLabs my consent, and they didn't send me a personal message, twas
Bulk.  If they learn and never do it again, Good! - Still, wasn't MY
idea of fun.

As for "cause they didn't send out their message" (themselves) - ? -
/Tease ON/ I *HOPE* you aren't arguing that Charles Manson was a good
guy as as he didn't kill many personally?  /Tease OFF/  I don't think
you want to argue (or are arguing!) that.  (I'm not saying that
Spamming's as bad as murder - There's no benefit to putting up with a
behavior when the consequences were severe, though - so why allow it
with merely annoying consequences?  Honesty and ethics start with the
LITTLE things, as anyone with kids learns, if you aren't honest with
pennies then your teaching them about honesty won't fly.  You wouldn't
like it, if you have kids, if they stole quarters from you - why allow
the same thing from a Spammer?)

{Quote hidden}

IMO, Not so.  You really cannot filter or block a new spam source, until
it sends you SPAM - You can set consequences for SPAMming, though.  The
MAPS RBL blocks repeated SPAM sources, but cannot block someone who gets
a new e-mail account and sends their crud through that new ISP - not
instantly anyways.  Education and tools such as the MAPS RBL that get
ISP's to act faster and more effecively, can work to rid us of the few
"bad apples" that do SPAM today.  Tolerance for their abuse of the net,
isn't going to do much more than keep the status quo - They'll act
according to their nature, however messed up that nature IS.

There are lots more hard-core people than I am;  There're ISP's that
refuse all e-mail from AOL, due to all the e-mail SPAM from there from
free e-mail accounts - Still work to be done there, I imagine there's
some internal heat there...  I don't know if the MAPS RBL will EVER
block AOL (some days I almost hope <G>)

Part of the problem IMO is that there were originally no consequence for
lax enforcement, until the MAPS RBL came along anyways - It works.

> BillW

 Mark

2000\04\25@205502 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
>> Unsolicited Bulk is Unsolicited Bulk.

Define "unsolicited."  Is targetted bulk email OK?  What about accurately
targetted?

Define "Bulk."  100 recipients?  1000?  10000?

Staying away from the political issues, however:

   > The technology exists NOW to stop it (or most of it, anyway) at the
   > inbound ISPs.

   IMO, Not so.  You really cannot filter or block a new spam source, until
   it sends you SPAM - You can set consequences for SPAMming, though.

What I had in mind was that the ISP would block (outgoing) mail connections
entirely, except to its own servers.  Those servers would know the identity
of the user, and be able to limit them to a 'reasonable' number of messages
or number of recipients each day.  "Reasonable" can be redefined on a
per-user basis if necessary, since the ISP now has the capability to TRACE
any spam that happened to originate through its access points.

BillW

2000\04\25@205902 by Dan Michaels

flavicon
face
Mark wrote:
.........
>The good thing is, you guys aren't Buying anything from Spammers -
>That's a very very good start.
>
>The bad part is, you haven't done the math - Here's the second part of
>the puzzle.  Do the math, guys.  If it doesn't spook you, I don't know
>what to say...
>
>Let's say spamming becomes a much more common business method of
>advertising.  With ~25 million businesses in the USA as of last year
.............

Yeah, we KNOW the math. Exponential growth is magical. Or
cancerous, depending ....  When it gets *THAT* bad, then
*I* won't have to worry about it myself, because our
glorious congress and the ISPs will do something about it.
The ISPs aren't gonna commit suicide because of spamming.

Until then, "big deal". I've gotten very good hitting that
ole "trashcan" icon. Also found the wonderful "Empty Trash"
key. Plenty else to think about. Noisy PCBs. Sun in the morning.
Snow in the mtns. Chicken for dinner. The 100,000 new people
moving to Colorado every year. Etc...

["too old to flame, too young to die", I guess].

2000\04\25@213905 by Mark Willis

flavicon
face
Answers IMO below.  I Am Not A Lawyer (and I know what I like and don't
like.)  If we cannot meet minds here, perhaps we should either take it
off-list or just "agree to disagree"...  I have to go help a friend move
tonight.

William Chops Westfield wrote:
> >> Unsolicited Bulk is Unsolicited Bulk.
>
> Define "unsolicited."  Is targetted bulk email OK?  What about accurately
> targetted?

I mean "Unsolicited".  Targeted = Unsolicited, unless I specifically
signed up for it (I could harass one list member for force subscribing
me to his mailing list, but he DID have pretty strongly implied
permission as I said I'd get to it <G>  I'm not THAT finnicky!)

If I didn't either ASK in some obvious manner (e-mail or posting on a
web form or some tracable, obvious manner where it's CLEAR that I CHOSE
to REQUEST something from the sender, then if it's sent to me, it's
unsolicited.)

Someone who "stalks" another person via e-mail can get in trouble here,
too.  Permission can be revoked <G>

How's this unclear?  If I didn't make the choice to receive a post or
posts, someone ELSE chose it for me.  Reputable companies don't "target"
consumers or force anything down their throats - they find ways to lead
the customers to THEM, and to keep the customers happy once "snagged".
UBE isn't a good start to a business relationship any more than sending
a snailmail, Postage Due Advertising mail would be a good start...

> Define "Bulk."  100 recipients?  1000?  10000?

Bulk is N >= 2 IMO - and also requires non-personalized e-mail, i.e.
boiler plate or "mail merged", etc.  If you send me solicited "bulk" (as
in the PICS list "Boing" message) that's fine as even though it's
"Bulk", it's a part of the list's mechanism (and I chose to subscribe to
the list) - it's predictable and I could filter it if I don't want to
see it;  If you send me an unsolicited personal e-mail as in "Mark, I
disagree with your views on SPAM" that's fine too - If someone sends me
news clippings or some other e-mail without personalizing it ("Hi, Mark
- How're the cats?  Saw these clippings on cat training, what do you
think, should I train Bert?" or some such), IMO they're risking their
e-mail account as that can break their ISP's AUP / TOS.  I don't mind
much if it's someone I know (I'd harass them though!) - A "Family
Christmas Letter" is fine here too, IMO (but not by some peoples'
standards) - as long as you KNOW the sender fairly well, and/or they can
show they know you fairly well, permission for future posts of that
sort's clearly understood to be a revokable choice of the *recipient* -
I'm paying for MY e-mail inbox, it's my property.  I'm pretty lenient
compared to quite a few people (Some few people have password systems
where, unless they mail YOU a password and you use it in the subject
line as well as using your personal e-mail account to send the message,
they reject your message.  Imagine they get VERY FEW Spam.)

{Quote hidden}

If / When that's universally done, you'll find people having problems
from those limits, and/or the abuse desks busy fixing those numbers...
(For example, one "Nut" I've been corresponding with uses a Bigfoot.com
e-mail address;  I cannot send a CC to him as Bigfoot classifies that as
"SPAM" - but if I send a message to him as a "To" message and send it
also "To" the other person involved (who has the same filtering), I get
the message rejected by both ISP's.  If I send the same message twice -
once to each - this nut objects as I could be saying different things to
each of them.  I gave up, heck with that, as Bigfoot wouldn't answer my
e-mail asking them how to fix this!)  The limitations tend to hugely
inconvenience just HONEST people - and not to stop the SPAMmers, who
arrange to get an SMI-8.6 server attached to the net and spew all their
crud through THAT new IP address, or use Direct-to-MX methods, or or
or...  Pretty cheap to get 100's of free e-mail accounts if you use
stolen Credit Cards, which they DO use, then just cycle through those
accounts.  We're NOT talking about people who care what the limits are,
more like people good at circumventing said limits - Don't expect them
to act other than according to their nature...

As I do all this shipping stuff for people, it's not uncommon for me to
send one e-mail, BCC'ed to 35 people who've bought in on a mass order;
Some ISP's I've been on would by default classify that as "SPAM", even
though while it's (pretty personalized for that group) Bulk, it's pretty
clearly Solicited e-mail.  (I BCC it to prevent e-mail address
gathering, many people do that.)  I've been inconvenienced by limits.
I'd only get complaints if I *didn't* tell these people what I was doing
with their money / goods <G>

I like Dave Van Horn's method of the "'Net Spam Credit Check", but don't
know if AOL et al., much less Yahoo / Netscape / where-ever, will ever
implement anything.  Remember, every penny spent on their Abuse Desk,
comes out of their profit margin - so unless we make allowing Spamming
quite costly, to the ISP, and send complaint letters, their incentive to
take any preventative measures is pretty minimal...

As FreeI.Net among other free ISP's pride themselves as "100%
Anonymous", a Spammer could just log on to one free account, post the
maximum limit allowed, log off, log back in, send N more, log off, log
back in and send N more, log back off...  Hardly "effective".  They
don't use that method as using stolen Credit Cards is apparently easier
- Hardly "Honest" businessmen / women.

> BillW

 Mark

2000\04\26@002641 by Dan Michaels

flavicon
face
Mark wrote:
.........
>The good thing is, you guys aren't Buying anything from Spammers -
>That's a very very good start.
>
>The bad part is, you haven't done the math - Here's the second part of
>the puzzle.  Do the math, guys.  If it doesn't spook you, I don't know
>what to say...
>
>Let's say spamming becomes a much more common business method of
>advertising.  With ~25 million businesses in the USA as of last year
.............

OK, Mark, I guess you're right after all. I just got spammed
by Digikey, since I set off that last missive. I've only
logged onto their site once, many months ago. There're gonna
lose $200/month in business - if they do it 25,000,000 more
times!!! But then, who would I buy all my overnite prototyping
supplies from?

2000\04\26@093504 by Russell McMahon

picon face
Hi Peter - I haven't been following this thread at all. I decided to read
one message to see what it was all about and was pleasantly surprised to
find myself singled out for mention in dispatches. I must be doing something
right :-)


Thought rather than carrying out the approved Ctrl-D that I'd comment on a
few points.
You've made a few comments which I wouldn't have thought you could be sure
of - turns out that some of your assumptions are correct - you must have a
very good information network :-).

>Other people routinely post completely OT items to this list but do so
>without censure


Maybe some are so lucky. I get censured variably and try never to post OT
without significant thought about how I'm going to make other people feel.
There seems little point in pretending to spread light and cheer if you are
instead making a significant number of people feel hateful and unhappy.

My latest post you allude to (but certainly not my latest post) was marked
[OT] and gave full warning about its content. Another message which nobody
complained about ON list involved me i  an amicable exchange OFFLIST with
list management. This was re the 4 channel PWM uP that Philps have recently
announced. I didn't mark this OT as many people had been involved in the
prior related thread and I decided that a fair number of these would be
interested. Hard to be sure what reaction one will get to such things.

>and which happen to get ME angry - but I PgDn and move on.

I'm always somewhat mystified as to why some things make people angry. I can
of course attempt to work through the process but without getting inside
others' mindsets it's uncertain.

>Russell last put in a message about religion last friday

A rather special Friday (in some people's estimation).
In the case of this message it is reasonably possible that you didn't read
it right through (thereby missing the PIC content (albeit weak :-)(added
only for fun)) at the end. I hope that you would be less than angry if you
had read it all (excluding the PIC content which was enough to make any true
PICster angry :-)).
But, maybe not.
It was as close as I could get to making a coment which was very much about
God both non-0religious and non-offensive to people of any persuausion. But
quite possibly my best isn't good enough.


Looking back at my send log I find I have sent 250+ messages to PICLIST in
about 8 months - about 1 per day average. On top of this are private emails
and file transfers arising out of PICList queries. Most of these are
technical and the vast majority are replies to people seeking technical
info. My biggest transgression is arguably the occasional attempt at humour.
My "religious" or whatever they are posts comprise perhaps 1 or 2 % of my
postings. Where would we be if everyone did this - why, we'd have 1 or 2% of
the list being this sort of content. Of course, it wouldn't stop there and
this is at heart a technical list so such forays are indeed limited. If
"paying one's dues" counts for anything in this microcosm of a global
community (and maybe it doesn't) then I hope I've paid mine in technical
assistance rendered and might just possibly be allowed a (very) little
lee-way in other areas. Maybe not though.

>and typically ends
>his messages with easttimor.com and starving kids.

The sig line format was suggested by PICList admn (some while ago), I'm
grateful to say.

The "hunger"-site is not just about starving kids but of course, children do
seem to be best qualified to go hungry in most places where such problems
arise. The site is (arguably) useful in that it does just what my sig line
claims - with 2 mouse clicks and 2 screen loads you cause funds to  be
donated to the UN's famine program. These come from advertisers but it's
about as tidy, well contained advertisng as you'll find on the net. If you
have a philosophical problem with supporting this (or any) aspect of the
UN's work feel free not to go there. I have very ccasionally clicked on an
interesting ad from this site - I hardly ever take any notice of internet
ads elsewehere so they must be doing something right :-)

The links in my sig are to sites where people can make up their own mind
about the "propganda" they find there. I say nothing about what it's about,
leaving it to people's fertile imaginations to decide if it sounds relevant.
Most can have a fair guess as to what they'd find there and in the case of
the Sudan site would probably be wrong.

>Well having been in E.
>Timor at the time of the 1975 coup, having 'hunted' the locals in Rhodesia
>in 1978 and worked in Indonesia bribing my way around for 2 years I get
>rather hot when I read such pleas from distant, green New Zealand


No please made here - I'm not sure what is making you annoyed.

There's a different group hunting in Zimbabesia at present.
I personally would rather none of the hunting happened as it has either way
back when or more recently.

> by a person who has  never been to these places.

Well Done!
How did you know?.
DIY spies must be everywhere. But, you are correct. If prior persosnal
geographical experience was a prerequisite for comment or possession of
meaningful knowledge then the world would indeed be a quieter place and have
fewer opinions (or links to websites) bandied about.

>(All do-gooders should read 'Deliver us from Evil', William Shawcross,
>2000. His latest book.)


I'll happily at least skim any such book if anyone delivers it free into my
hands and will very happily read it if it appears well written and fair. As
I'm sure you know, there are any amount of pot-boilers, get rich & (more)
famous quick and similar works out there which aren't worth spending time
on. Finding the worthwhile critiques is a problem. Information acquisition
could be considered my "hobby" and if someone has something useful and
balanced to say, let's hear it.

On other matters :
++++++++++++++

How are you going with ISD - I referred you to a man who was apparently
driving the 4xxx series with success. Did he turn out useful?
Any further thoughts on this area?


Dunno how long this took to write.
Cathartic?
Dunno  :-)


regards

               Russell McMahon

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2000 , 2001 only
- Today
- New search...