Wed, 23 Oct 1996 11:59:11 +1000 (EST)
Michael Ledwidge writes:
> > No matter how distressing the message was, I do hope there is not the
> > usual media hype on the "Evil Internet".
> Blimey! You can't have it both ways. I would have thought that posting to a
> high-profile mailing list like link counts as media nowadays. The beat-up
> of this issue started here and somewhere someone has demonstrated a
> worthwhile point - this medium is so very ripe for exploitation, even
> amoungst the educated. Words without substance never had so much power.
I think I was the first person on link to see the message -
the way it was worded, I thought it was a personal message direct to me.
It did not seem like a spam at first, I was too busy wondering why I got
I have received some strange messages before (women often do) and I
thought this one could have been sent to me personally for it's shock
Tracing the message back through the headers it seemed legit...
I was actually relieved when other people got it, as it then confirmed
to me that it was a spam.
Anyway, while I am a 100% advocate of net.freedom, and anti censorship,
this message crossed the barrier of human decency, and it was highly
(and I have a very high tolerance to such things)
> For the Net to function properly as a tool/environment/workspace for the
> individual then the onus is on that individual to recognise
> _lack_ of substance as the double-edged sword it is. Are we really ready
> for all this? I think not.
In this case, it touched a raw nerve on an emotional level.
logic and commonsense about the matter escaped many of us...
SPAM is and always will be Shit Parading As Meat,
but this was something wicked and sinister...
Rachel Polanskis Kingswood, Greater Western Sydney, Australia
Witty comment revoked due to funding cuts