Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

The Scumbag Responds
Robert Sexton is, as we know, a bald-faced liar. For those who aren't in the know, or haven't clicked the above links, Sexton is the guy who was repeatedly spamming me and numerous other people; in my case, from February through the end of August, despite my entreaties by e-mail and phone for him to stop.

Of course, the guy, who's supposed to be an Internet business expert, was too dim to Google my name and his to see if maybe his rebuttal to my complaint at the Better Business Bureau wouldn't quite fly...vis a vis the lengthy posts I'd made on my site, complete with screenshots. In his BBB rebuttal, he started out with this, intimating that I'd contacted them about doing business with them:

Ms. Alkon contacted our company about three weeks ago after having found our site ... and when we told her the cost of what we do,

He never told me the cost of what he did because I didn't ask, or frankly, give him a chance to talk about the merits of spamming the fuck out of people who want to be left alone. He went on to pretend that he thought I could be some chick who worked for a California-based spammer (a supposed Internet worker who doesn't exist on Google, with a name [Amy Alcon] that doesn't exist much of anywhere). Hence, I posted this rebuttal on the BBB site:

This guy is lying. I'm a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist, published author, and blogger. I don't work for spammers, I didn’t contact this guy after having "found (their) site," or ask for prices. Like many people, I have been being spammed by him for months on two different e-mail addresses, and complained because Sexton ignored my repeated e-mails asking him to stop. All the documentation to refute what he says above is here: http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2007/08/how_do_you_feel_1.html Or just google "Robert Sexton" and spammer -Amy Alkon, syndicated columnist, advicegoddess.com

Well he's done it again. Here's his BBB rebuttal to my rebuttal:

Her response has zero to do with the fact she contacted us three weeks ago, and everything else I said was in fact true. I still have her shrieking voicemail where she said 'all companies like yours should be forced to donate their money to the homeless' etc etc. All she has to do, per Federal regulations, is simply click on our opt out link or reply saying 'remove'. We're fully CAN-SPAM compliant. The fact she's a nationally known columnist has zero to do with what I am saying. We have no desire to sell her our product, nor any desire to be in contact with her.

What a moron. I guess he figures people will just shell out bucks to him, and not be the least bit curious about copy/pasting my link into their browser, and maybe searching my site for "Robert Sexton" or just "scumbag."

Sexton's e-mails are anything but CAN-SPAM compliant, as they do not post an opt-out link at the bottom, do not respond to directly e-mailed responses to be removed from their list, do not post their street address, and slimey Robert Sexton only responded to my requests to be removed when I made them to Kathryn Bishop, one of the people mentioned in his e-mail, who's a real business genius herself (would you use a real estate broker mentioned in every one of the numerous spam you've been getting -- since February -- from some slimebag? I sure wouldn't, and told her so on the phone -- the one thing that seemed to jolt her into action, and the one thing that got Sexton to finally e-mail me back after all the entreaties from me, asking him to stop spamming me, that he ignored).

Oh, and yes, even here in Paris, on my laptop, there's evidence Robert Sexton is a bald-faced liar. Here's a screenshot of one of the five e-mails he sent me on August 29. See that opt-out link he claims is in there?

sextonlyingscum.jpg

I find it scary that the guy just flips lies off like they're nothing. FYI, there's never been an opt-out link in any e-mail he's sent me, and they aren't worth the paper they aren't printed on anyway.

What makes me happiest is that this is now yet another post, if you Google "Robert Sexton" spam or spammer that will come up on the Internet, showing that this man makes money by stealing others' time. And, as time is money, Robert Sexton is no less a thief than a crack junkie who breaks into your house and steals your TV.

P.S. Sexton, so sorry you seem to have the intelligence of a retarded Rhesus monkey, but if you don't want to do business with somebody (per your comment, "We have no desire to sell her our product, nor any desire to be in contact with her") the best way to accomplish that is to respond to that person's repeated e-mails to be removed from your spam lists before that person gets her back up and starts posting complaints about your business practices at the BBB. (Note that I don't appeal to your sense of fairness and decency, since it's clear they left those on the floor at the factory.)

Posted by aalkon at September 10, 2007 11:09 AM

Comments

...and everything else I said was in fact true...

Ahhh...so he's admitting that at least some of what he said was not true?

Posted by: Doobie at September 10, 2007 4:31 AM

Richard Sexton should be put in the stockades in the town square where his spam victims can heckle him and chuck hot rocks at him. That is true justice!

Posted by: Gretchen at September 10, 2007 7:20 AM

Apparently, Mr. Sexton is an arrogant asshole.

Posted by: Roger at September 10, 2007 8:40 AM

Smear him with bananas and grapes (I looked it up) and lock him in a cage with the monkeys. Then make him clean the cage the next day.

Posted by: DaveG at September 10, 2007 9:43 AM

The king of spammers
Robert Sexton is pure scum
May he rot in Hell

Posted by: Lena at September 10, 2007 2:20 PM

he can be beaten. (scum doesn't deserve a capitol letter to designate it.)

Pull him in. He thinks he has a hook set in you, but in fact it's the other way around.

Posted by: Curtis at September 10, 2007 2:24 PM

Yes, it's "capital" here and not capitol as I posted.

Posted by: Curtis at September 10, 2007 2:28 PM

This post of yours won't fly to Digg, but it will maybe get there.

There are many people quite capable of slicing & dicing that boy to his proper size. Until he meets them, he acts big.

Hackers might well destroy the dope, his having invited them so.

Posted by: Curtis at September 10, 2007 2:39 PM

:::earworm alert:::

"...if it rings of truth, throw it out the window..."


Posted by: Flynne at September 10, 2007 4:49 PM

Yer too hip for the room!

Posted by: Crid at September 10, 2007 6:59 PM

It will get to Digg if you Digg it! This one and/or the rest.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at September 11, 2007 12:09 AM

Smear him with bananas and grapes (I looked it up) and lock him in a cage with the monkeys. Then make him clean the cage the next day.

Yes, and with his tongue.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at September 11, 2007 12:11 AM

Deprive him of all food except SPAM--that horrible lunchmeat.

Posted by: Doobie at September 12, 2007 4:21 AM

If I'm not mistaken, you can sue this fucker for noncompliance w/the CAN-SPAM laws, no? Take 'im to the cleaners, Amy!

Posted by: Kim at September 12, 2007 7:59 AM

I don't usually sue spammers because they're usually in Romania. But, also, there's this:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070807/005917.shtml

When Congress first passed the CAN SPAM law, they were very clear that it wasn't to be used by the everyday citizen to sue spammers. Instead, it was only for ISPs or the government. Of course, a group of anti-spam fighters quickly came up with loopholes, whereby they basically pretended to be an ISP for the sake of suing spammers. Back in May, we noted that one of the guys using this trick lost his case, as the judge pointed out that he clearly wasn't an ISP and was simply abusing CAN SPAM. Thus, it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that the same guy has now been ordered to pay $110k for the legal fees of the company he sued. The judge also blasts the guy for bringing frivolous lawsuits, noting that he basically set up an entire business whose only purpose is to bring lawsuits against those he accuses of spam. This ruling is likely to put something of a damper on these types of lawsuits. Many people may point out that it's unfortunate that guys like this can't sue spammers any more, but if you want to blame someone, it should be Congress for the wording of the CAN SPAM law (which was more intended to clarify what type of spam was legal, than to outlaw spam).

Posted by: Amy Alkon at September 12, 2007 11:41 AM

Leave a comment