BEWARE of PCWORLD.COM, they're big-time 3rd-party spammers.

[Michael Tsark]

BEWARE of PCWORLD.COM, they're big-time 3rd-party spammers.

I had been receiving daily subscriptions from PCWorld.com for a number of years but yesterday I expunged them completely out of my computer because to my dismay they thoroughly convinced me beyond all doubt that pcworld.com magazine scams in cahoots with spammers which explains how come the vast majority of the time during all these years their product reviews almost always say “Be the first person to make a review about this product.†Now I know why. Earlier today I felt a little eager to try an animation-maker software for beginners since I have no experience about it and pcworld.com website had strongly recommended it as one of their “TOP 15 DOWNLOADSâ€. So I clicked on the link to their download webpage and clicked “reviews†and received the same old message that I so very often receive, “Be the first person to make a review about this productâ€. Next thing I did was attempt to download the software but was redirected to the autodesk.com website, next I clicked on their download link to obtain the product but was redirected to another one of autodesk.com's webpages that said I'd have to first provide them a whole bunch of personal information in order to get their free basic edition software, including stuff like postal address, phone number, etcetera. So then I returned to PCWorld download and wrote a review to warn others about the download but when I tried to submit my review I was redirected by PCWorld to another one of pcworld's webpages that said there was an error in loading my review because I was supposedly trying to use an old link? So then I tried from scratch to start all over in reaching their download page and tried again to submit my review but this time instead of being redirected to the webpage about using an old link, I was redirected to their webpage that says “Be the first to make a review about this product†as though I had been on that webpage in the first place and as though I had done nothing more than simply refreshing that webpage? So then on my third attempt to submit my review I made a very brief one-sentence review while also mentioning that it was only a test to see if I could successfully submit a review, and lo and behold, the submission was successfully posted with no trouble whatsoever at all and there it was, I was the first user to post a review about the product. So then I tried another 4 times to submit my complete review and each time something different would go wrong where either I would be redirected to the webpage saying the link I was using is to too old or it would act like I did nothing more than refresh the download page. So then on my 8th attempt I tested it again by submitting only another quick sentence or two and it worked perfectly and flawlessly again and the product review was instantly posted but to my surprise my original brief review from my 3rd attempt was no longer posted which clearly indicated to me that someone at PCWorld website was monitoring my submissions in real-time and they were deliberately manipulating my product reviews which explained to me how come after all these years the vast majority of the time whenever I tried to look at a product's review at pcworld.com it would most times say “Be the first person to make a review about this productâ€. Turns out that PCWorld.com deletes the vast majority of negative reviews which means they're in cahoots with spammers as one of the 3rd-party business partners. So then I went to my PCWorld account page and erased all my personal information including trying to change the email address by giving them a new fake email address except I couldn't change the address because they would send a confirmation to the new fake address before they'd change the old address, so from there I went to spamgourmet.com to register a free account to be able to create disposable email addresses, then I went back to PCWorld and changed my email address by giving them a disposable one, then I waited to received my confirmation email and was able to confirm to PCWorld that I had changed my email address. From now on anymore email from crooked pcworld.com will be eaten and destroyed by spamgourmet since I now no longer use that specific disposable email address that I gave to pcworld.com, but just to be even more thorough I then went straight to my RoadRunner webmail account to blocked and auto-discard all and any future email that comes from “PCWorld†incase of the event that pcworld scammers still try to send their spam to my original email address. Here's what the full product review looks like which pcworld wouldn't let me post:

Reference: Maya Personal Learning Edition Review

Suckers Beware: At first I was hoping to try this software but unfortunately the selling of personal information to 3rd-party business partners for the sole purpose of spamming is big business with big monies to be made. The download link for the animation-maker software leads you to the Autodesk.com website where the download is only so-called free only on the condition if you provide all of the following REQUIRED personal information in order to obtain their so-called free software:

First Name (Required);

Last Name (Required);

Company Name (Required);

Postal Address (Required);

City (Required);

Country/Region (Required);

State/Province (Required);

Zip/Postal Code (Required);

Work Phone (Required);

Email Address (Required);

Description Of You Or Your Business (Required);

Description Of Your Primary Field (Required);

Description Of Your Industry (Required);

Timeframe For Purchasing A New Solution Package (Required);

Your Role In The Decision Making Process (Required);

Status Of Your Project Funding (Required);

What Is Your Primary Platform: Linux, Macintosh, SGI, Or Windows (Required);

Would You Like To Receive Email From Autodesk, Including Information About New Products And Special Promotions, Yes or No (Required).

The only two questions that are optional to answer is "Address 2" and "Remember Me On This Computer, Yes Or No?" They're using their animation-maker software as nothing more than bait-trappings as the equivalent of a telemarketing gimmick for spamming purposes, for example, in the trick-question of "What is your role in the decision making process" their drop-down-menu gives you 3 choices to choose from either "Decision Maker", or "Recommender/Influencer", or "No Involvement". The secret purpose for that question is to find out if you're married or not and/or if you're the husband then you're most likely the primary income provider who makes the money in the family and most likely have money in a savings bank account since you have a family to think about, or if you might be the wife or a single man or woman, or if you might be just a dependent member of the family without your own money, etcetera, and that way autodesk.com will have a better idea of what kind of priority spam to target you with. Only people with scam mentality will pretend to offer you something for so-called "free" while at the same time employ typical telemarketing gimmickry to secretly trick you into letting them gather as much personal information they can get in order to sell that information to as many 3rd-party spammers who'll pay big monies for such information. Honest legit people don't do that when they offer freeware. If autodesk.com were at least a bit honest they would simply come out and tell you the truth "Hey, we'll let you download one of our basic free edition products only on the condition that you first tell us if you're married and how much money you make and how much money you have in your savings bank account so that we can sell that information to others?" But instead they ask you about your business and what industry you're in and your timeframe for purchasing a product, etcetera, because they're attempting to determine if you're married or not and how much money you make, and if you might have a savings account and if you're the type who can be easily talked into buying things you don't need or don't want as long as a salesperson uses persuasive and/or aggressive sales tactics, etcetera. The question “What is your primary platform†is also just a trick question to throw their victims off guard by asking a simple harmless question that has nothing to do with their primary objective of targeting their victims, but rather it's a tactic of using “mis-direction†to make it seem like the last two questions are perfectly harmless and therefore make it seem like all the other questions must also be perfectly harmless. It's up to you if you want to try trusting autodesk.com but I'm compelled to tell you now, ..."I TOLD YOU SOOOOOO?"

- - - end of product review - - -

From now on I'm sticking with CNET's Downloads.com who post both positive and negative product reviews. In the past I've had a few interactions with a few of CNET.com Admins and I was thoroughly and absolutely convinced that CNET.com is 100% Professional and 100% Honest all the way, which is something I rarely seem to find in the cyber world. You can tell a legit company from the rest when all of their Admins have the professionalism to respond to ALL and ANY of your emails in a very prompt and professional timely manner and they always say the correct professional things that you would expect a professional and honest company to say no matter how trivial the issue may seem to be.

As for spamgourmet.com it's the first time I tried using disposable email addresses but first I googled for “free disposable email addresses“ and then googled “spamgourmet complaints†and I was soon satisfied that spamgourmet.com is an honest and legit website. And it turned out to be a lot easier to using a disposable email address than I thought it would be. Spamgourmet is run by volunteers and their idea of using disposable email addresses is just another type of unique option towards combating spam. For instance, if I were to go back to autodesk.com and filled out all of the requirements with bogus personal information along with a newly created disposable email address, all I need to do for instantly making a newly disposable address is by choosing any word, followed by a dot, then a number between 1 to 20, then a dot, then my spamgourmet user name, then followed by [at]spamgourmet.com, for example, “autodesk.15.tsark[at]spamgourment.comâ€. The next 15 emails that autodesk.com might happen to send me will first go through spamgourmet who will auto-forward them to me. If I should happen to see an upsurge spike in spam going to my “autodesk.15.tsark[at]spamgourmet.com†email address then I'll know autodesk.com is connected to spammers and that specific email address would already be set to self-destruct after the first 15 emails from autodesk.com or else I can opt to destroy that disposable address sooner so that anymore spam going to that specific disposed email address will get eaten up and destroyed by spamgourment.com. After I had registered for a free account with spamgourmet.com there's no need for me to go back there unless I feel like changing some settings but otherwise a single visit to spamgourmet.com to register is all that's needed. I don't plan on using disposable email addresses hardly at all but it's a nice option to have around just in case. In most instances if I'm leery about giving an email address then I'd rather not have anything to do with that company in the first place. I can already anticipate some degree of reduction in spam now that I've done what I could to close my account with pcworld.com and expunged them out of my computer. I feel sort of stupid for not realizing a lot sooner how come during all these years most of the product reviews at pcworld.com kept saying “Be the first person to make a review about this product.“ I knew it was strange but it just didn't dawn on me that pcworld.com was big-time 3rd-party scammers. I'm glad I finally know the truth about their scam mentality 'cause now I can get back to whatever it was I was doing, ...come to think of it, what the heck was I doing anyways....?... ...oh yeah, ...anybody wanna buy a REFURBISHED freeware firewall?

Sincerely,

Michael Tsark

[Telarin]

I very seriously doubt that autodesk is involved in spamming, as they are a huge publisher of high-end CAD software (AutoCAD) and several high-end graphics and animation packages. Collecting demographic and marketing information in exchange for a free program is pretty standard procedure for most publishers when it comes to free versions of software. Did you bother to read the privacy policy for either PCWorld or AutoDesk?

[Michael Tsark]

I very seriously doubt that autodesk is involved in spamming, as they are a huge publisher of high-end CAD software (AutoCAD) and several high-end graphics and animation packages. Collecting demographic and marketing information in exchange for a free program is pretty standard procedure for most publishers when it comes to free versions of software. Did you bother to read the privacy policy for either PCWorld or AutoDesk?

Thank you for your input, Telarin, but oh cousin, you crack me up. I'm so much under the impression you did not even bother at all to listen to anything I've just said but instead you only heard me while everything still went in one ear and immediately out the other, or to be more precise, you did not bother at all to read anything I've just written but instead you looked at things but everything went into one eyeball and then immediately out the other, ...how'd you do dat? There's two key points you're missing here. 1) Action speaks louder than words and pcworld.com's actions of not allowing negative reviews is the only thing that makes sense as to how come during all these years the vast majority of the reviews say "Be the first person to review this product". Only scam mentality behaves that way and if you can't easily figure that out then something's not exactly right here? If you want to believe that hardly anybody ever submits negative reviews then how do you explain I can still always find virtually tons of negative reviews on all of those very same products on CNET and yet you want to believe for some unknown reason no one else wants to give any reviews on pcworld.com about those very same products? 2) You said it yourself that collecting demographic and marketing information is standard procedure for most huge publishers but you seem to have no idea of what their mindset is like, or maybe you do? It's all about money, money, money, and they have a one-track-mind of trying to figure out how to get money out of the population and it takes priority over any individual's financial dignity, so-to-speak. And after they get through sweeping throughout the entire demographics by employing every conceivable trick-in-the-trade they know of in trying to squeeze out as much moola as they can out of the given population, they start all over from scratch and sweep throughout the entire demographics all over again for the sole purpose of squeezing out as much moola as possible. I agree that not all big business are unethical but I do surely presume it's safe to say that more than 95% of big business is a dog-eat-dog world out there. If you want to be that naive to think autodesk.com is a good and honest company and only wants to know your physical address and phone number and uses telemarketing gimmickry out of the kindness of their heart in order to give you a limited version freeware, then so be it, cousin, you pretty much deserve to get spammed for being that naive.

Many of times I do happen to read a company's Privacy & Terms of Service Policy and do so in detail and it just so happens that as a matter-of-fact a couple of my email correspondences with CNET involved a few syntax errors which I had discovered within their Terms of Service Policy in which CNET Admin had thanked me for bringing it to their attention and they promptly assured me that their lawyers were going to work on it immediately in making the corrections. But otherwise, in answer to your stupid smart aleck question, no, I do not always read every single Privacy Policy there is in the world and especially for pcworld.com and autodesk.com, for why in the world would I want to waste my valuable time now in reading a known scammer's Private Policy when I already know full darn well it's either going to lie or going to try and hide among the small print where it says somewhere in double-talk that they "share collected private information with 3rd-party business spamming partners"? Oh, Telarin, thank you again for your input because I'm inclined to think that you either actually meant well and that you are not some undercover scammer working for pcworld and/or autodesk, or else you rather seem like you might be the type who have some degree of the aggressive sales person built within your own psychological profile and therefore you have this naturally tendency of wanting to automatically defend anyone who is accused of aggressive and unethical sales practices. I would prefer to think that you're merely naive in which case I pray to Mother Nature that you never-ever find yourself stuck in the streets, my cousin, because you are not street-wise and the street-sharks would eat you alive simply as mere appetizer. Like I said, I'd rather believe you meant well but I also find your illogical so-called rationale somewhat unbelievable to the point of reaching absurdity to where it just makes me laugh that anyone would say such a thing considering everything that I just wrote? In essence, you gave the exact same kind of typical scammer's rhetoric that I would fully expect out of pcworld.com and autodesk.com if they had attempted in giving a feeble response in their desperate attempt at pretending to be innocent by trying to change and/or detour the subject by giving typical scammers' rhetoric. If you're truly that naive then I won't even bother to tell you now that I told you so because all I wanna know is if you're interested in buying a refurbished freeware firewall because have-I gots da right deal just for you, my cousin, and I'll even let it go at half-price and you can even read its Privacy Policy if you want to but first you gotta gimme your phone number and tell me how much money is in your pockets right now?

People, people, people, is it just me, or what? I've never posed a poll anywhere nor anytime in my entire life before, but this time I'm curious of what others might have to say? Do you think Telarin is just being naive, or, considering after everything I've just described about pcworld.com and autodesk.com, is he possibly another scam mentality himself who's trying to desperately defend spammers by presenting me with such ridiculous typical crooked rhetoric such as "...but have you read their Private Policy yet?" I'd like to think he's just being naive but my gut feeling keeps telling me that he knows full darn well exactly what he's saying, but still, please allow me to present the polling question in a much nicer format:

1) Answer "YES" if you think he's innocently being naive.

Or 2) Answer "NO" if you DO NOT think Telarin is being naive.

Or 3) Answer "NEITHER" if you think he is actually making a good and honest valid point afterall.

If your is answer "YES or NO" then I have no more further question to ask of you and I thank you for participating in this unscientific poll.

Psssst, ...come'ere,...if your answer is "NEITHER" then please supply me with your home address and home phone number and email address and don't forget to tell me how much money you have in your savings account because have-I gots da sweetest half-price deal just for you on refurbished freeware firewalls and it even comes with its own complete Privacy Policy free-of-charge, (...however there will be a nominal fee for the included Terms-Of-Service Policy).

...Hey, ...come'ere, don't walk away it's all good, I promise?

[Miss Betsy]

I will admit right away that I didn't have time to read /carefully/ your posts.

However, spamming and scamming are different things although spammers are often scammers, scammers do not have to be spammers.

If you want something 'free', then you may have to divulge certain information in order to get it. If you think that's a 'scam', you don't have to get it.

I once 'won' a free something. I don't remember what it was, but when I called to claim it, they wouldn't let me have it because my husband had to come with me to the presentation. (this was in the days before women could have credit separate from husbands) I was just as mad as you were. I was prepared to sit through their presentation in order to get whatever it was they were giving away, but they wouldn't let me unless the 'wage earner' was also present!

As for the 'review' I will bet that the reason everyone is to the 'first' is because it is broken somehow! Or that you exceeded the number of characters allowed.

Miss Betsy

[turetzsr]

<snip>Did you bother to read the privacy policy for either PCWorld or AutoDesk?

<snip VERY long, sometimes amusing but also unreasonably (IMHO) insulting beginning of reply>

no, I do not always read every single Privacy Policy there is in the world and especially for pcworld.com and autodesk.com

<snip>

...Thank you for finally answering Will's reasonable (IMHO) question.

please allow me to present the polling question in a much nicer format:

1) Answer "YES" if you think he's innocently being naive.

Or 2) Answer "NO" if you DO NOT think Telarin is being naive.

Or 3) Answer "NEITHER" if you think he is actually making a good and honest valid point afterall.

<snip>

...You probably don't really care what I think but, since you asked, well, let's see: I know Will through this Forum, he has a respectable (and respectful) history in this Forum; I don't know you but I see you're quite the insulting wit. Thus, my answer: NEITHER -- he is actually asking a good and honest valid question (not making a point) after all (as far as I can tell from the above exchange).

[Farelf]

...to be more precise, you did not bother at all to read anything I've just written ...

(Somebody has to say it). Be that as it may Michael, very few people would bother to read what you've written, not because of the content so much as the presentation (well, the attitude doesn't help much, either). And the same goes for your other posts. You make it very hard to read them. Unless that is your aim, you might care to consider your "Readability Statistics":[tcol]Readability

[/tcol]	Counts
Words	1056
Characters	4946
Paragraphs	1
Sentences	21
	Averages
Sentences per Paragraph	0.0
Words per Sentence	48.3
Characters per Word	4.6
Passive Sentences	0%
Flesch Reading Ease	29.9
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level	21.0

- (using the MS Word tools for that last post, down to the smart-arse pseudo poll).

Researching those results and heeding the assessments might help your communications skills, if that appeals to you.

[Michael Tsark]

removed unnecessary quote Miss Betsy

I sincerely thank you all so very much for your honest replies because at least now I know that as far as this forum is concerned, it surely is "just me" afterall.

As for my lengthy posts, yeah, that's how I am and it doesn't bother me at all when people don't bother to read what I have to say because that's the beauty of the written word along with the freedom of choice to read or not-to read and I'm perfectly okay with that because there's lots of stuff I won't bother to read, but if it appears as though someone haven't read my writings but going to make a comment about it then I may likely make a comment in return but I'll at least read their comment in full so that I'll at least know what they've said, that is, unless I've already identified them as criminal profiles such as pcworld.com and autodesk.com (Re-The Private Policies) in which case they have absolutely nothing of value to say to me. Plus, I do my best to focus on paying attention to what they're saying rather than on how they're saying it. What matters to me most is what the person is trying to communicate to me. That "readability" stuff only gave me a really good laugh, thanks. It only reminded me of all the funny posts I've read where people complain about a writer not using perfectly standard English and particularly when English is not the writer's primary language. To me, that's the silly equivalent of someone who speaks English endlessly complaining and insisting that all French speaking people in the world should correctly call a pencil a pencil instead of calling it a crayon, meanwhile the complainant appears to have no idea what the writer said because all the complainant can comment upon is how the person did not use perfect English, oh boo-hoo. If it's more important to someone of how someone-else is saying something in contrast to what that someone-else is trying to communicate, then oh well, to-each-their-own. In other words some of you may likely find it much better for your own peace of mind to never read anymore of my posts or else it may likely upset you on how I say things along with what I might have to say. As for my purpose for being here, it's because this is an anti-spam forum and I'm often prone to being point-blank straight-forward about things while at the same time try to add sarcastic humor so as to make it less boring although I'm fully aware that not everyone shares my sarcastic sense of humor.

But as for pointing out my sarcastic humor, yeah, you sure got me there and I can't deny any of it, but if you can't stand the heat then why don't you just simply get out of the kitchen? Go check with the restroom, maybe it's vacant?

As for Telarin's original reply, I have to agree that we'll all have to agree-to-disagree because I have no doubt whatsoever and am absolutely 100% positively convinced that pcworld.com and autodesk.com wants peoples' email addresses for the primary purpose of selling that information to 3rd-parties for spamming purposes because of the monies involved in conjunction with their suspicious behavior of how they do business, hence, we have pcworld's long time habit of blocking negative product reviews particularly if it might just so happen to require personal information to obtain the so-called freeware in sheer contrast to other true freeware than does not require supplying any personal information whatsoever, and if that's not obviously clear to any of you who's responded thus far, as it is to me, then oh well so be it, as to-each-their-own and it boils down to a matter of live-and-learn? Hey, I tried to tell you and that's the best I can do, is try? As for the distinction between spammers versus scammers, I agree that spammers are often scammers but not all scammers choose spamming as a criminal career choice, but whether they be hackers, spammers, or scammers, I don't trust any of them and I deliberately don't have any friends nor acquaintances that fit those psychological profiles, only my enemies do.

But the bottom line? Unfortunately I can't help but feel somewhat sorry for all you folks who's responded thus far because I think you're all so unbelievably naive particularly in regards to pcworld.com and autodesk.com but then again I admit that I used to be so very naive about pcworld.com myself up until the very point they showed me their true colors, and in which I've apparently failed in sharing my enlightenment with you, but if you think pcworld.com and autodesk.com sounds like a trustworthy good deal to you, then by all means feel free to go for it if and whenever you might be so inclined and in the mood to give them a try? Wow? However, I do so enjoy and appreciate your instinctive reaction to defending the seemingly underdog, of Telarin, that is. Every once in awhile I myself will jump right in to quickly defend a seemingly underdog even though I might happen to whole-heartedly disagree with the so-called underdog. It really and honestly has brought a smile upon my face to be seeing others to quickly jump in to do the similar. For real-kine. And of course anymore "NEITHER" answers in the future will of course continue to be appreciated in this Lounge because deep down inside I know at least nearly all of you sincerely mean well and that you have good intentions and I'm not against good intentions even when you disagree with me or even criticize my psychological profile. But then again, if I happen to get any feedback that smells like nothing more than somebody's sole intended purpose of only playing sick-mind-games then I'm apt to ignoring it as though they simply don't exist, no biggee. And I'm presuming we're all adults here and I don't particularly suspect any children are reading this forum nor replying to my posts in which case I'd be force to tone everything down.

But alas, aside from all that you all still forgot to give me your phone numbers, email addresses and current savings bank account balances because have-I gots a righteous good deal just for all of you?

[Miss Betsy]

If you don't want to give anyone your phone number, email address and current bank balance, you don't have to. And neither do I.

If you think that anyone who asks for that information is a scammer and spammer, that's your opinion. I don't take polls, in general, so you don't know what my opinion is, apparently.

Miss Betsy

[Michael Tsark]

I'm so glad Miss Betsy provided more evidence as to her psychological profile because she was still the only one of the responders that I was not yet fully convinced of, but I sure as heck am now.

I've run into my fair share of sly scammer mentality throughout my lifetime and there's one thing I can always count on whenever I confronted a scammer with detailed facts about their scam behavior. They always inevitably respond with typical scammers' rhetoric in their feeble attempt to try and convince me that I'm somehow mistaken and wrong despite the fact that I just got through supplying explicit details of their scam behavior. I've also noticed the similar trend whenever I had inadvertently warned another scammer about some other scammer's scam behavior. They of course have this natural inclination to try and protect one another by quickly trying to convince the victim or potential victim that the victim or potential victim is all wrong even after the victim or potential victim had just gotten through describing in explicit detail the facts of the scammer's behavior at hand.

As for me and as far as I'm concerned, I had just gotten through explaining in explicit detail in avoiding all doubt whatsoever about pcworld.com's and autodesk.com's scam spammer mentality and what I got in quick return was 4 responders where 3 out of the 4 claim to have not fully read my post but yet all 4 responders are evidently quick in trying to defend pcworld.com and autodesk.com as well as trying to convince me that I'm somehow wrong about pcworld.com and autodesk.com. I can't help but notice that the combined efforts of the four responders tend to focus on attempting in trying to make it seem as though I am somehow all wrong and mistaken and as though pcworld.com and autodesk.com are supposedly not spammers, plus the issue is detoured away from anti-spam issues and instead re-directed towards my lengthy writing style and my choice of writing without my using standard English writing rules as well to my usage of sarcastic humor. In all of my intellectual sanity I have to say that anyone with any decent amount of honesty would have had no trouble whatsoever in comprehending as well as agreeing with the facts I had presented as substantial proof towards indicating that pcworld.com and autodesk.com are indeed spammers. However, it's been of my lifetime experiences that it would not surprise me that anyone who might happen to share some degree of scam mentality themselves would automatically have the inclination in trying to defend on behalf of other scammers. At this stage of events, I DO NOT TRUST TELARIN, I DO NOT TRUST TURETZSR, I DO NOT TRUST MISS BETSY, AND I DO NOT TRUST FARELF, and all 4 at the moment are under my suspicion as to whether or not they could very easily be sly spammers themselves who have infiltrated SpamCop Forum? It would not surprise me if all 4 would be quick to disagree with me on this and may even perhaps want to try and convince me that no spammer spies could ever infiltrate SpamCop Forum. At first I really wanted to give Miss Betsy the benefit of the doubt but it kept bothering me as to how come she would dare to say something so stupid and ridiculous as, “As for the 'review' I will bet that the reason everyone is to the 'first' is because it is broken somehow! Or that you exceeded the number of characters allowed.“ â€Broken somehow?“, after all these years?, yeah, right. Such a response smelled too much like typical scam mentality rhetoric at trying to grope at anything to make excuses for the obvious spammer-likes of pcworld.com. Strange how it's only broken the majority of the time when a negative review wants to get posted but otherwise have no problem posting positive reviews. As for exceeding the number of characters allowed, how strange that there seems to be no limit to the characters on positive reviews, and furthermore there's no mentioned by pcworld of there being any limit to the amount of characters and it's been ALL of my Internet experience that whenever there is a limit somewhere then it is explicitly mentioned to the writer that there is a limit, furthermore I notice there's no limit on any of CNET's product review, likewise, I see no limit here on SpamCop Forum, so then why would she try to make such poor feeble excuse at trying to defend pcworld.com's guilt? However, I still wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt until-unless she provided more evidence and she did just that when she wrote, “If you don't want to give anyone your phone number, email address and current bank balance, you don't have to. And neither do I. If you think that anyone who asks for that information is a scammer and spammer, that's your opinion. I don't take polls, in general, so you don't know what my opinion is, apparently.“ Likewise, if I think someone is stealing from me if they should just so happen to break into my residence uninvited and takes my possessions then that's "only my opinion" that I've just been burglarized, yeah, right. As for her opinion, I couldn't care less about her opinion now that I've got her psychological profile pegged. That's the typical nonsensical kind of typical scammer mentality response I would only expect from someone exhibiting scam mentality who finds the inclination to automatically try and defend a known spammer, as in this casefile, autodesk.com. The more that these 4 responders continue with their feeble attempts on trying to convince me and our innocent readers that pcworld.com and autodesk.com are trustworthy companies who are not spammers, then the more these 4 responders continue to raise my own suspicions about these 4 responders. As far as I'm concerned I heard enough out of them to convince me that they cannot be trusted because all of their responses are exactly what I would likely expect only out of those who shares scam mentality for themselves and therefore as far as I'm concerned these 4 responders have absolutely nothing of value to say to me. There's not a single word they've said that suffices anything towards convincing me that they can be trusted, they have not said anything that makes me think they said the right and honest thing to say but in fact everything they've said has only convinced me of otherwise. Everyone has to draw their own conclusions here and I certainly have mine based within the contents of this very thread alone. I no longer care what those 4 responders think or say because in my own personal opinion they've just been busted because only bad eggs would try to convince me that known spammers are not spammers considering and despite all the details I've just provided and only bad eggs would try to detour the issue away from anti-spam efforts via their feeble rhetoric.

I've done what I could to warn the rest of you about pcworld.com and autodesk.com and since I've received no sane honest responses on this thread that's worth of any value then I see no reason for me to address this thread any further. Thank you for letting me share my thoughts with you on all of these matters.

Sincerely,

Tsark out.

[Wazoo]

As for my purpose for being here, it's because this is an anti-spam forum and I'm often prone to being point-blank straight-forward about things while at the same time try to add sarcastic humor so as to make it less boring although I'm fully aware that not everyone shares my sarcastic sense of humor.

........

inside I know at least nearly all of you sincerely mean well and that you have good intentions and I'm not against good intentions even when you disagree with me or even criticize my psychological profile. But then again, if I happen to get any feedback that smells like nothing more than somebody's sole intended purpose of only playing sick-mind-games then I'm apt to ignoring it as though they simply don't exist, no biggee. And I'm presuming we're all adults here and I don't particularly suspect any children are reading this forum nor replying to my posts in which case I'd be force to tone everything down.

This is actually a support venue for the SpamCop.net tool-set. Yes the Lounge area was set up to allow for discussion of things other than SpamCop.net.

However, your 'sarcastic humor' actually reads of personal attacks on some folks ...

As far as the 'readibility index' results provided and your 'sarcastic humor' humor laden response ... let me be the first to say bluntly that I find your ranting pretty boring. The hard to read aspect doesn't help. That you want to slam anyone that replies to your posts doesn't help much other.

Please change things before your long-winded posts and slams are determined to be disruptive and requiring Moderator/Administrative action.

[DavidT]

Tsark out.

I hope he really means that! Oh, and while I'm at it.... *Plonk*

DT

[Wazoo]

Please change things before your long-winded posts and slams are determined to be disruptive and requiring Moderator/Administrative action.

Wow! That sentence seems so out of place, coming after a post not seen as it 'arrived' while I was composing my last post here.

The folks bad-mouthed have been around for a number of years in this Forum, most also involved with the newsgroups, both currently and pre-dating this Forum. That someone wants to show up, make some rambling dialog, then take exception and make some asinine characterizations of folks that have worked hard to provide help and assistance to many folks over the years ... let's start with that it's not very appreciated.

[Michael Tsark]

Two hours after I had posted my accusations I tried to check my SpamCop account but was given this suspicious message by McAfee SiteAdvisor:

“Security Error: Domain Name Mismatch

You have attempted to establish a connection with "dss2.siteadvisor.com". However, the security certificate presented belongs to "dss1.siteadvisor.com". It is possible, though unlikely, that someone may be trying to intercept your communication with this web site [spamCop.net].

If you suspect the certificate shown does not belong to "dss2.siteadvisor.com", please cancel the connection and notify the site administrator.“

So I canceled it and closed the browser and went to my Spamcop account and I found it very interesting to note that within two hours after my posting my suspicions on SpamCop.net Forum of suspecting at least 4 SpamCop account members of being sly spammer spies that have infiltrated the SpamCop Forum, my usual amount of SpamCop spam during the last several months that was usually between near zero to perhaps just several per week in my SpamCop account skyrocketed to 6 spams all within those two hours alone after posting my accusations. In other words the rate jumped from usually several per week to a rate of at least 42 per week in the course of 2 hours after posting my accusations. And during these same last several months my usual average of 5 per day amount of spam that would typically reach my RoadRunner account received an abrupt upsurge of 21 spams all within those two hours alone and more spam has arrived to both accounts since then and have already surpassed more than two dozen within 3 and a half hours after posting my accusation. In terms of the weekly rate, my RR spam rate during the last several months suddenly jumped from 35-spams-per-week to 147-spams-per-week in the course of 2 hours after posting my accusations. Coincidence? Me certainly knows it's not. And anyone who is foolish enough to attempt in trying to convince me otherwise will only prove to me and the rest of the world that they have scam mentality themselves for trying to defend on behalf of the spammers. Oh, yes, I've stuck some nerves alright and somebodies busted. Your days are number, people, and there's nothing you can do about except retaliate with spam, oh boo-hoo, it's so pathetic that that's the worse you can do. Oh, yes, people, your days are certainly numbered because it's going to be impossible for you folks to convince the proper authorities that after several months of a substantial low spam rate that all of a sudden the drastic upsurge spike in spam within two hours of confronting this forum online is only a mere coincidence. You gave me a molecular trail leading straight back to you and there's nothing you can do to erase it now. You're not the first bunch of spammers I've dealt with and neither are you the first bunch of losers that I'm bringing down and the best part is that when it finally happens there's no way on earth that I could even begin to convince you that it's all because of me, for that's how good I am at what I do. Not a brag, just a fact, so please gimme all the spam you got 'cause I just love to eat spam especially when its fried with a little rice on the side. It's been so much fun because you folks have been so easy to catch, so, so, easy, hook, line, and sinker. Darn you folks, now I can't stop laughing!!! I'm getting out of here because you're starting to give me a tummy ache from laughing so hard!!! Thank you so much for all the laughter and I mean that from the bottom of my heart. I dunno, maybe it's just me? But it's so much darn fun catching scammers, or is it just me? You're so busted for spamming and there's no where you can run 'cause you're already caught and you're just too lame to even know it yet, darn you folks, you crack me up!!! Thanks!!!

ps. If there's any shred of honesty amongst SpamCop domain then you're apt to leaving this posted to warn all the innocent in our world to see, but if this gets deleted then I'll know it means a bunch of somebodies are running really, really scared and I can't say I blame them at all for wanting to delete this thread. There's nothing in this thread that an honest person needs to be afraid of nor worried about, only the guilty has great cause for alarm and worry.

[Miss Betsy]

Well, that's a first! No one has ever accused me of being a schemer, much less a scammer and a spammer.

I think Michael's cousin lives in our town. The newspaper refused to print more than one letter from him per month so he filled his yard with signs. He has his own world view. He is intelligent and can point out some absurdities, but too often he is crude and, like Michael, attributes those who don't agree with him fully with all sorts of evil motives and actions. He has his supporters. He even got votes when he ran for mayor.

Unfortunately, Michael does not seem to understand that this is a forum about unsolicited email and how that email gets to one's inbox. Those who frequent it are not, in general, concerned about the content or intent. There are a few who are interested in obtaining convictions for those who break laws, but that requires expertise and time that few have.

And not only are many solely concerned with how to deal with unsolicited email, but many are supporters of blocking those IP addresses that spew the stuff, in other words, totally ignoring those who are rude (and it doesn't matter whether they are crude or criminal as well since they are ignored).

Miss Betsy

[Farelf]

...Well, that's a first! No one has ever accused me of being a schemer, much less a scammer and a spammer. ...

Alas Miss Betsy, the time for pretense is past, he has seen through you/us/all, our machinations are exposed by the actinic glare of a Superior Intellect which has been informed of the Cunning Knowledge which was ours alone through the solitary and virtuosic combination of keen observation, the application of meticulous logic and an anxious concern for the evidence. We poor devils never stood a chance, pitted agaist such as he.

Fortunately he has not yet stumbled onto the Fourier transforms which, applied to the ASCII codes of the prime-numbered characters (counted backwards) in all our posts made on odd day-numbers, would reveal the access codes of our hidden masters' Swiss bank accounts - they, at least, may yet flee their hideouts and have it away on their toes with their ill-gotten (Zimbabwean) millions. But we, we are doomed {sob}.

[Miss Betsy]

No, never say doomed. It was really my 'replicated self' whom he accused - built to the secret plans and specifications that I obtained from Calvin many years ago. That's why I didn't know anything about the scams and spams and schemes.

Miss Betsy

[StevenUnderwood]

1) Answer "YES" if you think he's innocently being naive.

Or 2) Answer "NO" if you DO NOT think Telarin is being naive.

Or 3) Answer "NEITHER" if you think he is actually making a good and honest valid point afterall.

2 and 3) I have read your account several times now and nowhere can I find you have received spam from either of these companies. Therefore, they are not spammers.

I use individual addresses for every point of contact and have for both of these companies (though not for the product you are discussing) and neither of those addresses has ever been spammed.

I also did not see in your original account where you tried to create a short 1 or 2 line negative comment.

[Farelf]

No, never say doomed. It was really my 'replicated self' whom he accused - built to the secret plans and specifications that I obtained from Calvin many years ago. ...

Sheer brilliance. If only I had your vision.

[Miss Betsy]

No, your analysis was brilliant because it was original! I just wanted to acknowledge it with a reference to another original viewpoint.

Miss Betsy

[DavidT]

...with their ill-gotten (Zimbabwean) millions.

Zimbabwean? Don't you mean Nigerian?

DT

[Farelf]

...Zimbabwean? Don't you mean Nigerian?

Well, if I was a criminal mastermind of the internet scamming variety that might be so but no, I was thinking more along the lines of:

1 USD = 30,137.00 ZWD 1 ZWD = 0.0000331818 USD

...whereas

1 USD = 117.250 NGN 1 NGN = 0.00852878 USD

...which wouldn't have quite the comedic effect I sought though I suppose the 419 link would have actually been funnier, but possibly not to the O/P who doubtless would have run off to report such an "admission" to Interpol, the FBI and the consulate of the Principality of Hutt River (and don't laugh at Prince Len if you've paid any sort of tax since 1970 ).

[DavidT]

Ah, yes, the rapidly-declining value of Zimbabwean currency....I get it now. I hope that Mugabe is thrown out of office...although it seems that he's actively working at "cooking the books" on the election there.

DT

[showker]

This thread is just incredible!

Amazing that I just wasted how many minutes reading every word of it?

On the other hand, I have to hand it to that guy. What a story! Can I get reprint permissions?

But I believe if you look a little deeper, you'll find C|net is no better than any of the other twenty or so "main stream" online portals which play every trick (some clean, some dirty) in the book to extract reader demographics. About.com is the absolute worst. You'll get spam almost immediately after registering for anything on About.com. Just clear out ALL your cookies, and go to ONE SINGLE About.com page. BINGO. 30 or 40 cookies -- several of which will be "super cookies" meant to extract data from OTHER cookies on your machine! And check some of those expiration dates! "Expires 6/10/2026" ... will any of us even be alive in 2026? I probably won't.

Some time back, I wrote an article "How to identify a spam Site" and ranked sites as to the ratio of spam to content. About.com ranked the highest with something like 20-to-1 spam to content ratio.

That's why I always use "alias" information.

Unless the email reply they ask for requires you to get a response in your actual email account, the whole world is fair game. Just Google a uber-wealthy shiek in Dubai and then use HIS profile! (One snag, the "married" field doesn't accommodate "how many" wives!) That way, they get what they want, and you get what you want. Better yet, use the profile of a Chinese government official!

Realistically, though, just use your SpamCop address... and happily move their spam to the "Held" folder for reporting.

Again... it was most enjoyable. Thank you all.