flaming spam

Ken Kinman kinman2 at YAHOO.COM
Wed Jun 22 23:03:37 CDT 2005

     I disagree.  My original post was very short and to the point, and with a link to the appropriate site for those who might be interested.  I am not selling viagra or anything else, I get no income from PBS, so I see no reason to label my posting "flaming spam".  If anyone is in a flaming mood, it certainly was not me.

     It seems to me that PBS has provided a very valuable service to the biological sciences for many years, and it deserves our support.  If some would prefer such funds be diverted to Halliburton and other warmongering "spammers", so be it, but I think it is worth our time to protest whenever we get a chance.  You may think that sounds simplistic, but I judge this administration by it actions, none of which appear friendly to the environment, biodiversity, or the future health of this planet in any way.  Seems like we get spammed by them every time one turns on the television or any other news outlet.  In any case, you are quite free to omit my posts with one little stroke of the delete button.  It's your choice, but others on this list may define flaming and spam quite differently than you do.  I can only encourage you to wonder where the money for PBS cutbacks will end up.
  ------Ken Kinman

Kurt wrote:
     I am as big a fan of public broadcasting as anyone I know, but this forum is not an appropriate venue for dissemination of information of this kind. I don't want TAXACOM to become a haven of spam; I get enough of that already.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list