MMS SPAM.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005
16:21:38 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <DTC@boogie_boggie.blog> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>> Got it. Do you drive the same way?
>
>Not relevant - you control the speed you want to drive within the posted
>limits and which roads to avoid traffic jams.

Yet again we'll just have to agree to disagree.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

---

› See More: MMS SPAM.

John Navas wrote:
> clifto <[email protected]> wrote:
>>John Navas wrote:
>>> clifto <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>>> It's actually more a matter of the US Constitution -- there are serious
>>>>> constitutional issues in prohibiting speech.
>>>>
>>>>Prohibiting spam is NOT prohibiting speech. It's a time-and-manner
>>>>prohibition; you prohibit the manner of speech, just as you're doing
>>>>when you outlaw sound trucks advertising throughout the neighborhood.
>>>>Perfectly moral, legal and sound in principle.
>>>
>>> I disagree.
>>
>>"Free speech isn't free when it comes postage-due." -- Jim Nitchals
>
> Sound bites don't really add anything to the discussion. If you have an
> authoritative citation on the law, then post it; e.g., R. Jonas Geissler,
> "Whether 'Anti-Spam' Laws Violate The First Amendment", 2001 J. Online L. art.
> 8 <http://www.wm.edu/law/publications/jol/articles/geissler.shtml>
>
> Conclusion
>
> {par. 37} The proposed federal anti-spam law would UNCONSTITUTIONALLY
> limit speech because the government interest in preventing mere
> annoyance is not the sort of compelling interest needed to limit core
> political speech--the inevitable effect of the proposed statute.
> [snip]

Heard all about these analyses. Every single one of them goes after
the red herring and fails to address the theft problem. Spam is
theft no matter how you decorate it with lovely free-speech banners.
There cannot reasonably be any requirement that I pay for anyone
else's free speech, and no one could ever morally justify such a
requirement. However, the You-CAN-SPAM Act now legalizes this theft
when spammers meet a few perfunctory requirements (which hardly any
spammer meets anyway).

If you want law, go back to 1997 when Rep. Christopher Smith proposed
the only really decent spam law; it would have changed the junk fax
law to include e-mail, and give e-mail status equal to faxes. Note
that if there was any free-speech objection to the junk fax laws,
it was laughed into oblivion for the reasons I gave above: you can't
steal to promulgate your free-speech message.

Last word to you.

--
If John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination,
my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 15:56:27 -0600,
clifto <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>> clifto <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>> clifto <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>>>> It's actually more a matter of the US Constitution -- there are serious
>>>>>> constitutional issues in prohibiting speech.
>>>>>
>>>>>Prohibiting spam is NOT prohibiting speech. It's a time-and-manner
>>>>>prohibition; you prohibit the manner of speech, just as you're doing
>>>>>when you outlaw sound trucks advertising throughout the neighborhood.
>>>>>Perfectly moral, legal and sound in principle.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree.
>>>
>>>"Free speech isn't free when it comes postage-due." -- Jim Nitchals
>>
>> Sound bites don't really add anything to the discussion. If you have an
>> authoritative citation on the law, then post it; e.g., R. Jonas Geissler,
>> "Whether 'Anti-Spam' Laws Violate The First Amendment", 2001 J. Online L. art.
>> 8 <http://www.wm.edu/law/publications/jol/articles/geissler.shtml>
>>
>> Conclusion
>>
>> {par. 37} The proposed federal anti-spam law would UNCONSTITUTIONALLY
>> limit speech because the government interest in preventing mere
>> annoyance is not the sort of compelling interest needed to limit core
>> political speech--the inevitable effect of the proposed statute.
>> [snip]
>
>Heard all about these analyses. Every single one of them goes after
>the red herring and fails to address the theft problem. Spam is
>theft no matter how you decorate it with lovely free-speech banners.
>...

If there really was a theft problem, then these smart folks would undoubtedly
address it.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 15:56:27 -0600,
> clifto <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>>clifto <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>clifto <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's actually more a matter of the US Constitution -- there are serious
>>>>>>>constitutional issues in prohibiting speech.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Prohibiting spam is NOT prohibiting speech. It's a time-and-manner
>>>>>>prohibition; you prohibit the manner of speech, just as you're doing
>>>>>>when you outlaw sound trucks advertising throughout the neighborhood.
>>>>>>Perfectly moral, legal and sound in principle.
>>>>>
>>>>>I disagree.
>>>>
>>>>"Free speech isn't free when it comes postage-due." -- Jim Nitchals
>>>
>>>Sound bites don't really add anything to the discussion. If you have an
>>>authoritative citation on the law, then post it; e.g., R. Jonas Geissler,
>>>"Whether 'Anti-Spam' Laws Violate The First Amendment", 2001 J. Online L. art.
>>>8 <http://www.wm.edu/law/publications/jol/articles/geissler.shtml>
>>>
>>> Conclusion
>>>
>>> {par. 37} The proposed federal anti-spam law would UNCONSTITUTIONALLY
>>> limit speech because the government interest in preventing mere
>>> annoyance is not the sort of compelling interest needed to limit core
>>> political speech--the inevitable effect of the proposed statute.
>>> [snip]
>>
>>Heard all about these analyses. Every single one of them goes after
>>the red herring and fails to address the theft problem. Spam is
>>theft no matter how you decorate it with lovely free-speech banners.
>>...
>
>
> If there really was a theft problem, then these smart folks would undoubtedly
> address it.
>


Clearly, our definitions of 'smart' are different.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 08:09:47 -0600,
> Jer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>
>
>>>I suggest you help yourself.
>>
>>That's what I'm trying to do, John, but I see no reason why I have to be
>>alone in the attempt.
>
>
> Self help is done by yourself. Instead you're expecting Cingular to do the
> heavy lifting, at considerable cost in resources, and just to satisfy you.
>

Clearly, our definitions of 'self-help' are different. I don't believe
I've ever said I'm expecting anything, John, I'm asking for help to a
problem that is growing in magnitude and affecting more people as time
rolls by. I've even intimated I'd shoulder my share of the heavy
lifting. We are all welcome to our own opinions, but none of us are
welcome to misrepresent that of another as you seem to be doing above.
I'd like to take this opportunity to caution you in this regard.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 20:45:51 -0600,
Jer <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>>
>> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 08:09:47 -0600,
>> Jer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>>>I suggest you help yourself.
>>>
>>>That's what I'm trying to do, John, but I see no reason why I have to be
>>>alone in the attempt.
>>
>> Self help is done by yourself. Instead you're expecting Cingular to do the
>> heavy lifting, at considerable cost in resources, and just to satisfy you.
>
>Clearly, our definitions of 'self-help' are different.

I think the universal definition is pretty clear.

>I don't believe
>I've ever said I'm expecting anything, John, I'm asking for help to a

That's a contradiction.

>problem that is growing in magnitude and affecting more people as time
>rolls by.

Evidence?

>I've even intimated I'd shoulder my share of the heavy
>lifting.

Not really.

>We are all welcome to our own opinions,

Yep.

>but none of us are
>welcome to misrepresent that of another as you seem to be doing above.
>I'd like to take this opportunity to caution you in this regard.

Knock yourself out. I think you're projecting.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 20:45:51 -0600,
> Jer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>>In <[email protected]> on Wed, 07 Dec 2005 08:09:47 -0600,
>>>Jer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>
>>>>>I suggest you help yourself.
>>>>
>>>>That's what I'm trying to do, John, but I see no reason why I have to be
>>>>alone in the attempt.
>>>
>>>Self help is done by yourself. Instead you're expecting Cingular to do the
>>>heavy lifting, at considerable cost in resources, and just to satisfy you.
>>
>>Clearly, our definitions of 'self-help' are different.
>
>
> I think the universal definition is pretty clear.

I also think the universal definition is pretty clear, but when did you
get the impression that I subscribed to it?

>
>
>>I don't believe
>>I've ever said I'm expecting anything, John, I'm asking for help to a
>
>
> That's a contradiction.

I disagree.

>
>
>>problem that is growing in magnitude and affecting more people as time
>>rolls by.
>
>
> Evidence?

Evidence? Since when do I need any sort of evidence to ask for
something I want? and even willing to pay for?

>
>
>>I've even intimated I'd shoulder my share of the heavy
>>lifting.
>
>
> Not really.

hmmm... interesting... did you blink while you were reading my prior
comments?

>
>
>>We are all welcome to our own opinions,
>
>
> Yep.
>
>
>>but none of us are
>>welcome to misrepresent that of another as you seem to be doing above.
>>I'd like to take this opportunity to caution you in this regard.
>
>
> Knock yourself out. I think you're projecting.

I disagree.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'