CallMeSpammer... OOT legal advice needed

[Mark Collins]

[ QUOTE ]
He never addressed your claim

[/ QUOTE ]

Perfect. As long as we get the point that he has made no response to the claim that it would be immoral. And that "hypocrisy" is a time-wasting claim with no real argumentative force behind it.

[Jack of Arcades]

He already admitted as such.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that the avid gambler's claims would in no way be lessened or affected by the fact that he or she gambles. And I certainly think that anyone attempting to address the claim that gambling is immoral would not be making any headway by simply calling the speaker a hypocrite. Hypocrisy is, in the end, a childish claim that no one will take seriously. You have to address the arguments--not surrounding circumstances--if you care to change anyone's mind.

[/ QUOTE ]


Mark,

It seems you are having problems understanding what Im saying, or you are intentionally twisting my words. So, Ill say it in bolded capitals


I AM NOT TRYING TO DEFEND MY ACTION BY POINTING OUT THAT YOU WOULD DO THE SAME. IM SIMPLY POINTING OUT THAT YOU SHOULDNT MAKE MORAL JUDGEMENTS ON OTHERS FOR ACTS THAT YOU DO (OR ARE WILLING TO DO)


Do you see the difference between me telling the avid gambler that "you shouldnt make remarks like that since you're a gambler" and "since you're an avid gamlber, your claims of it being immoral are wrong"?

Im addressing the first, not the second

[CallMeIshmael]

"As long as we get the point that he has made no response to the claim that it would be immoral."

Im cool with calling it immoral

[Mark Collins]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you see the difference between me telling the avid gambler that "you shouldnt make remarks like that since you're a gambler" and "since you're an avid gamlber, your claims of it being immoral are wrong"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I do see the difference, and I have been saying that both arguments are pointless. My response to your gambling example was that if the point of the discussion is the morality of an act, calling someone a "hypocrite" is nothing but name-calling. I am glad that you do not think you were at all responding to the morality claim by calilng me a hypocrite, but think that claiming hypocrisy was a method of evading any real discussion of the morality. But we now know that you agree, so fine. It did appear to be an attempt to rebut my argument, particularly because you started the sentence with "However, ..."

[hawk59]

i don't know dude, sending out e-mails to your whole school seem serioulsy bad ass, so bad that it must be illegal.

[scrub]

This strikes me as the sort of thing that has a lot of downside and an extremely limited upside.

scrub

[aeest400]

[ QUOTE ]
This strikes me as the sort of thing that has a lot of downside and an extremely limited upside.

scrub

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if not illegal the administration will likely have issues, particularly if any access you have to the email addresses stems from your position. Basically strikes me as a seriously bad idea. The administration may even have some sort of campus-wide email policy in place. Then again, you seem to have gone further down the 1) underpants...3) profit road than most.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This strikes me as the sort of thing that has a lot of downside and an extremely limited upside.

scrub

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if not illegal the administration will likely have issues, particularly if any access you have to the email addresses stems from your position. Basically strikes me as a seriously bad idea. The administration may even have some sort of campus-wide email policy in place. Then again, you seem to have gone further down the 1) underpants...3) profit road than most.

[/ QUOTE ]

SHOULDNT YOU BE BUSY NOT POSTING???????



for real though...I talked to a friend of mine at Cornell Information Technologies today, and as far as we know, I wouldnt be breaking any known campus laws.

Before I do anything that might get me in trouble Im def. going to sit down with someone with some authority

[webmonarch]

This is a serious response:

I'm an attorney. One of the things I do is sue scum who do exactly what you are contemplating. I personally love it, because they always think they're so clever, until I hit them with a subpoena for every record they've ever had, and have their name all over public documents.

It also seems to be less "cool" when I reduce their net worth by about 95%.

Few people are universally hated like spammers. I've never told people what I do and have them do anything but encourage me.

Finally, as to your question: Yeah, what you are contemplating is going to be actionable under numerous theories, including state consumer protection acts, state anti-spam acts, and certain federal privacy laws.

It doesn't matter where you are. I've sued many Canadians who think that because they're in Canada, they're immune to suit in the USA. About the only benefit you get in Canada is a longer time to respond to the law.

So, do what you will, but when you're found out, you better be prepared to pay the price and take it like a man.