On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 15:08:13 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, Jack
<see.sig@below.my.post> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 07:03:48 -0400, Jay T. Blocksom
> <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote:
>
[snip]
> >
> >And it's also fraud. Suuuuure, that's a *great* way to strike a blow
> >for "ethics". <~>
> >
> >Idiot.
>
> Actually Jay, it's called "being facetious" or "sarcasm."
[snip]

It didn't come off that way.

> Geez, where's your sense of humour? Or do you have one?
>
[snip]

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do; but your post wasn't funny.

> Oh! You mean you actually think I was serious about spending $1000 in
> order to get $100 worth of merchandise? Now *that* is what I call
> "idiotic." Fraud is generally used in an attempt to GAIN, not lose
> money.
>
[snip]

You might not have been serious; but you can safely bet that at least some
of the folks reading your post *will* take it seriously -- advocating fraud,
regardless of whether the scam-du-jour has much of a profit potential or not
-- is NEVER a laughing matter.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -