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

[Pop]

jg wrote:
> 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`

All I can say is, wow, what a myopic, egocentric view.