List Mail User wrote: > Huh? (Lookup "strawman" in a dictionary, please.) That's my understanding of what you were claiming happened. Yes, it looks like an absurdly weak argument. However, it's the argument you presented, as best I can make sense of your posts.
Or are you admitting that you made those arguments intentionally as a straw man to confuse the issues? > Scenario 3:) > A hardware store posts a *direct* link to a rebate form (or had a > pad of them on or near a shelf); Customer prints (or takes a copy of) the > rebate form (with no opportunity to every see the Scotts' web page telling > him that any email he provides will be used for marketing); Customer buys > a Scotts' product at the store and mails in the printed form, Customer then > receives spam. QED > > Please read the rebate form, then read the Scotts' privacy policy. > As I read the form, and Scotts privacy policy, Scotts cannot send you additional marketing information by email just because you entered this contest. As I read it they can only send you requested mail, but it depends on how you interpret the sentence structure. Regardless, even if we accept your theory that their privacy policy allows it, it doesn't prove, or even suggest, that they did. I find your willingness to accept a twisted reading of a privacy policy as satisfactory proof of spamming activity rather disturbing.
