I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Friday, June 01, 2007

Why potentially important "spam" should not be ignored

I found out about an important anti-cyberbullying law only because I engaged in a conversation here with a commenter whom I detest. I did not previously learn about this law despite spending several hours reading material about cyberbullying. I detest this commenter because (1) he is a self-appointed cyberbullying blogosphere goon who urges bloggers to censor my comments and the comments of others and (2) he clutters up this blog with pettifoggery. This incident shows the folly of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face by blocking or ignoring potentially important "spam" just because one thinks that the sender is stupid, ignorant, obnoxious, or whatever. By "potentially important 'spam'," I mean "spam" related to one's job, organization, or special interests. And I am using "spam" here in a very broad sense to include "forum spam" as well as "email spam". And a lot of people define the word "spam" as meaning any unsolicited communication, so by that definition anyone who sends unsolicited communications is a "spammer." One could make a major mistake, miss a big opportunity, or be greatly embarrassed because of ignorance about something that one might have learned about through potentially important "spam." One does not learn anything by burying one's head in the sand.

The discussion of this anti-cyberbullying law (the law's title is "preventing cyberstalking" but the law covers all cyberbullying) starts here.

I am also a regular reader of Fatheaded Ed Brayton's Dispatches from the Culture Wars blog, even though this jerk kicked me off his blog permanently just because he disliked my literal interpretation of a federal court rule, and BTW he did not give me even a single chance to respond to his objection to my interpretation.

If all emails had descriptive subject lines like they are supposed to have, then it would take just a minute or two to delete a day's unwanted spam or the unwanted spam could just be left undeleted and completely ignored. However, instead of promoting the use of descriptive subject lines, many opponents of spam are just trying to find more-sophisticated ways of automatically deleting spam so that they never have to see it -- never mind that something important might accidentally be automatically deleted. The main reason why we have an email spam non-problem is that there are too many lazy bums out there whose fingers are too lazy to delete unwanted emails and whose neck and eyeball muscles are too lazy to skip over unwanted emails.
.

Labels:

6 Comments:

Anonymous Voice in the Wilderness said...

>I detest this commenter because<

Because he is always kicking your ass. That's why you don't like him.

Anyone has a perfect right to block anyone they want. While it is possible that you may say something meaningful, it drops down into the probability of a monkey pounding on a keyboard accidentally typing the Gettysburg Address.

> (Ed) even though this jerk kicked me off his blog permanently just because he disliked my literal interpretation of a federal court rule <

Repeating this lie, even if you do it daily, cannot make it true.

Friday, June 01, 2007 7:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Defending spam...good move Larry. You just enjoy being hated, don't you?

Friday, June 01, 2007 9:51:00 AM  
Anonymous Eyes Glazing Over said...

< ... neck and eyeball muscles are too lazy to skip over unwanted emails. >

Urrp!

Friday, June 01, 2007 5:36:00 PM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

>> Defending spam...good move Larry. You just enjoy being hated, don't you? <<

To be fair, I think he's being haunted by the spam fairy (fill in mental picture if you dare). That's the only way I can imagine him actually consistently coming up with this crap that looks like it was just barfed up by a spammer's cat. He even uses the CAN-SPAM Act like they do.

Saturday, June 02, 2007 12:18:00 AM  
Blogger Rob Serrano said...

Oh and BTW Larry, WAH. I swear it's like you've made whining about, well, just about everything, into the major source of content on your blog. And you can't even back it up with anything bad/unfair that's ever actually happened, just your bald assertion that you must have been treated unfairly because in a fair world you would have been given whatever it was you decided you wanted. But that is another story about which you'll whine another day.*

*With apologies to The Neverending Story

Saturday, June 02, 2007 12:25:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

As I said, comments that gossip about my private life will be deleted (in case anyone is wondering why I just deleted a comment here).

Saturday, June 09, 2007 5:04:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home