Re: Junkie-Mail was Re: Standard?

Gary L. Burt (glburt@toad.net)
Mon, 02 Dec 1996 23:10:50 -0500


John D. Pritchard wrote:
>
> > This non-sequitur is predicated on the specious notion that junk
> > advertising is a social necessity for which we are required to find the
> > least-cost method of delivery.
> >
> > Any form of unsolicited advertising in which the recipient incurs an
> > expense is simply wrong.
>
> Resolved: "Any form of unsolicited advertising is simply wrong"

WHOA! Who turned that monster loose?????!!!!!???? Most desirable
advertising is
unsolicited!

Second of all, I hate to admit it, but I think that advertising is a
protected form
of free speech.

I believe that it is important to roll back to "any form of unsolicited
advertising
in which the recipient UNWILLINGLY incurs an expense is simply wrong."
I may not like
your junk mail, but if you do then that is your business. I feel that
it is important
that you don't jam your junk mail on me and I won't jam mine on you.

It also happens that my name and address occasionally gets into the
hands of some
one that I have never heard of and I get something that I am interested
in. I put up
with the junk for the rare nugget. What I regret is having to pay for
increased
postage to subsidize the ad campaigns. Make junk mailers pay as much I
as I have to and
that is fair.

(Snail mail and e-mail mail junk mail is the moral equivalent of each
other.)

Gary Burt
_________________________________________________
This messages was sent by the robots mailing list. To unsubscribe, send mail
to robots-request@webcrawler.com with the word "unsubscribe" in the body.
For more info see http://info.webcrawler.com/mak/projects/robots/robots.html