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

[Tim McGraw]

Pop wrote:
> Tim McGraw wrote:
>> 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."
> 
> View the complete thread, read the post, and check the times; you'll see 
> they agree. 

I understand what you were/are trying to say even less now.