] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

[billw4(--nospam--at)pbs1.com (Williston Warren IV)]

I could not agree with Ronnie Fong any stronger and to base a defense with
a weak attempt at critical outline of verbage exhibits the poorest of the
nature of the spammer.  tHE "author" of the code check program should
purchase a recent edition of the dictionary and the "author" would find
that SPAM is defined as a usless lunch meat and would include the sending
of unwanted "computer" software, term losely used.  

Maybe the word protocol is not the "correct" word, maybe the correct word
is MANNERS, TASTE, COMMON SENSE and RESPECT.  By the way this e-mail system
is the LIST SERVER.  

The reason TASTE warrants that SPAMMING is un-desirable is that this forum
is for discussion not sending "something" to a group and then want money
for it.  Attendence in English classes in not a requirement to knowing what
you want or need, and all of us who need this type of software have either
developed it or obtained from a source that does not provide SPAMWARE.    

SPAMMING or sending SPAMWARE is at the same level as cold calling people at
their homes selling swamp land in Florida.  And I am the "arbiter of what
is right", just ask anypne who knows me.  

As noted, additional sending of SPAM will reduce the numbers of those who
participate with the LIST SERVER, that is something that I as a Board
Member of SEAOSC would not want to see.  It has taken several years of
hardwork to develop the web page and list server to the point that it is
today.  

Word of advise to the "author" the "good taste" method would have been a
notice to the LIST SERVER and responded to inquiries.

	Bill Warren