Sorry Dizzy, but I think you're being too harsh. My elderly gran is relatively new to computer technology - she loves the internet, for family history, eBay etc, but because she doesn't understand completly how it works she would probably fall for this scamfushi.
Not because she's stupid but because she doesn't understand.
What? In the same way a frail, elderly person deserves to be ripped off by a bogus tradesman, or deserves to have their prized possessions stolen by a bogus caller?
What happened, Dizzy? Thinking mode left on lite today?
It must work otherwise the bastards wouldn't use it. Just like those e-mails I still get occasionally from the head of the FBI teling me or warning me about an African bank scame and that I should call this other person at the Bank of Umbongo to sort it out and claim my $11 million.
Bugger me, you can't make a joke about anything these days, can you? It's not as if Dizzy is the guy writing the bloody code for this phishing mechanism (apologies, I'm not down with the jargon). I think it's fairly apparent that to make a joke from the sidelines does not neccasserily mean that one is entirely condoning criminal acts. Jesus.
nought.point.zero: 'Bugger me, you can't make a joke about anything these days, can you? It's not as if Dizzy is the guy writing the bloody code for this phishing mechanism'
Oh the old it was only a 'joke' excuse comes out, what a surprise!
No-one accused Dizzy of writing the code, just pointing out that Dizzy said falling for it deserved it -and all a couple of comments said was not in every case.
Oh dear, as an OAP I clicked the link. It took all my money and gave me in return long dated Treasury Stock at zero per cent with a 10% buying premium. When I rang up to protest all I got was someone called Gordon who kept calling me "darling". What is going on?
Gaminah: Yes, I am using the joke defense because it was... er, A JOKE. And yes, I can read and I am aware no one is currently accusing Dizzy of being a phisher. I used an exaggeration to illustrate my argument which is predicated on the harm principal:
1) Dizzy committed no harm with his joke
2) Even if you think that old/stupid people should be protected from the dangers of the internet (and I guess I do) - that doesn't matter. It's irrelevent. Because that is a real life "what should we do about the stupid old people" situation and THIS is a JOKE.
Old people need protection. Great. Can we take banter a bit less seriously though? (yes, yes, I note the irony, I have reacted to all this in a serious manner.)
Anyone who falls for this does deserve to get scammed in much the same way that anyone who tries to walk across the Motorway at 10 o clock deserves to get run over.
You wouldn't let your kid try to cross the road without learning the Green Cross Code would you? Much the same as you wouldn't let your kid surf the net without some parental control and a rudimentary grasp of internet safety too. Strangely enough my parents, who are in their early fifties and don't understand the technology either, are also not allowed to just run loose on the net without me showing them some basic rules.
12 comments:
You deserve to be scammed if you fall for this.
Sorry Dizzy, but I think you're being too harsh. My elderly gran is relatively new to computer technology - she loves the internet, for family history, eBay etc, but because she doesn't understand completly how it works she would probably fall for this scamfushi.
Not because she's stupid but because she doesn't understand.
What? In the same way a frail, elderly person deserves to be ripped off by a bogus tradesman, or deserves to have their prized possessions stolen by a bogus caller?
What happened, Dizzy? Thinking mode left on lite today?
Oh my, that comment really did upset someone
It must work otherwise the bastards wouldn't use it. Just like those e-mails I still get occasionally from the head of the FBI teling me or warning me about an African bank scame and that I should call this other person at the Bank of Umbongo to sort it out and claim my $11 million.
Bugger me, you can't make a joke about anything these days, can you? It's not as if Dizzy is the guy writing the bloody code for this phishing mechanism (apologies, I'm not down with the jargon). I think it's fairly apparent that to make a joke from the sidelines does not neccasserily mean that one is entirely condoning criminal acts. Jesus.
nought.point.zero: 'Bugger me, you can't make a joke about anything these days, can you? It's not as if Dizzy is the guy writing the bloody code for this phishing mechanism'
Oh the old it was only a 'joke' excuse comes out, what a surprise!
No-one accused Dizzy of writing the code, just pointing out that Dizzy said falling for it deserved it -and all a couple of comments said was not in every case.
Or can't you read?
Oh dear, as an OAP I clicked the link. It took all my money and gave me in return long dated Treasury Stock at zero per cent with a 10% buying premium. When I rang up to protest all I got was someone called Gordon who kept calling me "darling". What is going on?
Gaminah: Yes, I am using the joke defense because it was... er, A JOKE. And yes, I can read and I am aware no one is currently accusing Dizzy of being a phisher. I used an exaggeration to illustrate my argument which is predicated on the harm principal:
1) Dizzy committed no harm with his joke
2) Even if you think that old/stupid people should be protected from the dangers of the internet (and I guess I do) - that doesn't matter. It's irrelevent. Because that is a real life "what should we do about the stupid old people" situation and THIS is a JOKE.
Old people need protection. Great. Can we take banter a bit less seriously though? (yes, yes, I note the irony, I have reacted to all this in a serious manner.)
I cant get it to work !
Brilliant!
Anyone who falls for this does deserve to get scammed in much the same way that anyone who tries to walk across the Motorway at 10 o clock deserves to get run over.
You wouldn't let your kid try to cross the road without learning the Green Cross Code would you? Much the same as you wouldn't let your kid surf the net without some parental control and a rudimentary grasp of internet safety too. Strangely enough my parents, who are in their early fifties and don't understand the technology either, are also not allowed to just run loose on the net without me showing them some basic rules.
Well I thought it was funny :)
I've just got nice email from very nice solicitor who wants me to pretend to be someone's next of kin in return for $11.4m.
Do you think this is a scam too?
it is funny.
and 99.9999999% of stupidity is "not understanding". what else is stupidity? nothing.
if she joined a ripoff mlm, would that not be being stupid? of course it would be being stupid - for not understanding that it's a ripoff.
of course ripping off people is illegal for a reason, but what helps ripping off a lot is if the victim is stupid.
Post a Comment