[Scspamcop] Re: low importance - anyone know what this spammer is peddling?

[jg]

On 8/4/2007 10:07 AM Pop inquired:

> jg wrote:
>> On 8/3/2007 5:17 PM Blinky the Shark inquired:
>>
>>> ed wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is a very-well-paid vacation for serious energetic people.
>>>
>>> Nice misspelling of vocation, there.  Makes it sound good.  :)
>>>
>>>
>> no, spammer meant vacation.
>>
>> There is a set of spammer rules and there should be a set of spam
>> reader rules as well.
>> Anyone dumb enough to think that manna falls off the branches of the
>> internet tree will respond to offers of paid vacations.  Most of this
>> ilk don't know what vocation means...
> 
> Ignorance and inexperience is not a crime, nor is it shameful.  Neither is 
> being "dumb" about something.

I suggest we agree to disagree on this point - 'ignorance of the law is
no excuse' is an underpinning of our judicial system and the same
philosophy should be in place in daily life and on the net.

>    If you're hungry enough, cold enough, undressed enough, poor enough, 
> streetwise, etc. etc. etc., even you could find in your desperation that 
> some of those offers could be very enticing.

Indeed enticing but it leads nowhere and if you don't have the smarts to
understand that, you shouldn't be using a computer facing the internet.
It is exactly that 'dumbness' that allows the spam trade to flourish,
making life miserable for all.

> 
> It's easy to be disparaging; it's harder to be sensible.
> 
> Pop`
> 
>