Actually, this thread started with an accusation based on certain correspondences between facts and a known precedent.fmr wrote:Funny. This thread started with an accusation based only in assumptions and purely circunstancional evidences. No evidence that WilliamK is the author of the mail or is in any way involced in it (I'm not saying he isn't, just that there is no strong evdence).
The known fact are simple. The email came from a website william runs. It was unsolicited email.
End of story.
A website william is responsible for spammed me and others. No other 'evidence' is required.
But here's some other information.
The other company involved in that website are not a company Ive dealt with. They wouldnt have my name and two of my email addresses. And they dont run the site itself.
wusik has my name, and is one of only half a dozen companies Ive dealt with who might have both of those email addresses and my name.
The email went to other current and former customers of Wusik. That would rule out a few of those other companies too.
The only 'circumstantial' thing I mentioned is that William has spammed me in the past (by name, to both those email addresses), and that he has repeatedly said he has removed me from his mailing list database without actually ding so. But whilst that is circumstantial, it provides historical context.
Its interesting that you can't even be consistent between saying there's 'no' evidence' and that its 'circumstantial', but that you refuse to actually contribute something that you would consider 'evidence' enough. Exactly what would be proof 'enough' for you? Are you expecting me to confiscate his computer records or something?
That would have no causal relationship to whether or not the current mailing list, or a prior copy of it, was used, though. No-one has claimed that the entire current list was used. Only that william has sent unsolicted email.Several Wusik users wrote here that they didn't receive any e-mail. I am a user myself, and I too didn't receive any e-mail.
what 'rage' or 'hate' ??I have no relation whatsoever with Wusik, but I think this rage (even hate) against some people here is something that starts worrying.
is that one of those accusations based on purely circumstantial evidence then?
actually it 'seems' to be from where I am. And I dont think your assertion miraculously trumps mine.Sure he made some moves in the past that didn't please me either, and I told him by e-mail, personally. However, the present case seems not to be one of those.
William hasnt publically acknowledged the issue, refuted resonsibility, nor explained where the list of names came from, and that's suspicious as all hell.William didn't answer, and I think it's a clever attitude.
Its not 'so called spam', it is actually spam. Im not sure why you're trying to pretend that unsolicted email might not be unsolicited email, but that's what it is. Its a pretty odd stance to take though, notwithstanding your arrogance in telling people what to do and how to react.Dogs bark, but the caravan goes on. Now, either you complainers come with a strong evidence of his culpability or simply delete the so called spams. The DELETE key is on you keyboard for a reason.
