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

[Tim McGraw]

Pop wrote:
> jg wrote:
>> Pop inquired:
>>> jg wrote:
>>>> 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.
> 
> All I can say is, wow, what a myopic, egocentric view.

I wish I knew who you were addressing and what you believe is "myopic, 
egocentric."