LC> There is a vast difference between being in physical danger and not
 LC> wanting to spend a few cents on fax paper.  The reponse to protecting
 LC> your life is different from the response to requesting that no more
 LC> faxes are sent to your number.  Over-reaction is not good business
 LC> practice, and is not economically advantageous. 
Excellent answer, Laurie ! I couldn't have created any better wording had I
tried (and I had, in fact...).
In one of my messages, I asked Dick what it was he did for a living, since I
had been led to believe that he was a lawyer. Upon reading a later message
from Dick (relative his "answer to" unsolicited fax messages), I came to the
realisation that he wasn't a lawyer, but that he had access to some third-
party or in-house legal services. I suggested that he was, perhaps, somehow
tied-in to the insurance industry, since I perceived a lot of similarities to
the "advice" he proffered within this Conference (ie - sending a letter to
some Complaintant threatening "full legal recourse", and then waiting for a
response offering to settle out of Court which would make more "direct-in-the
-pocket" sense than what a Court might award in terms of 
legal"-expense/costs
-meeting". That, and suggestions of certain "stall tactics" that are "typical
traits" of the insurance industry...)
When I stop to think about the nature of the problem under discussion, I come
to conclude that this fella enjoys making/doing more work that what's really
necessary...the kind that comes with too many hidden but inherent problems of
their own. His initial "answer" to the originator of this whole thread was
flawed (as it was maddening), but his subsequent effort of justification to
_that_ I thought was even worst. It seemed to me that here, we had a de facto
case of "the blind leading the blind" - or trying to ! Your answer (as quoted
above in this message) was right on the money !
Semper Fi
RTP
~~~ PGPBLUE 3.0 
... Life is Full of Choices: Pick Yours...
---
---------------