Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 28 Jan 2011 14:50:12 +0000
From:      elbbit <>
To:        Robert Bonomi <>
Subject:   Spam Rules, per argument (Re: Any package for surveys?)
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References:  <> <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
> On 28/01/11 12:28, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>> see: <>;
> I removed the "d".  Not too sure about the flying kids, looks a bit
> porno-related to me.  Hmm, I think it's biased too.  This is just my
> opinion though.

Further to my email earlier, I present to you my logical analysis of
your link, analysed by item:

> Rule #0: Spam is theft.
Mail servers are offering a service.  If you don't want to receive spam
stop offering the service.

> Angel's Commentary: Spammers believe it's okay to steal a little bit
> from each person on the Internet at once.
Stealing... taking without consent... hey, you offered to deliver some
mail for me.

> Rule #1: Spammers lie.
Assumptive.  Just like when you lose something you assume it may be gone
for ever, but wait, no, there it is, you left it in your pocket.
Assumptions can be wrong as well as right.

> Russel's Admonition: Always assume that there is a measurable chance
> that the entity you are dealing with is a spammer.
Sounds like an instruction.  Maybe, it would be better as a guideline:
"There is a chance a person is attempting to deliver mail, which the
sender may want people to read.  The words contained in the message are
series of numbers and letters which may communicate an idea which you do
not agree with."

> Lexical Contradiction: Spammers will redefine any term in order to
> disguise their abuse of Internet resources.
It is true that some people lie and cheat and say whatever is neccessary
for the own personal gain.  Most of these lies are to do with a personal
motivation to make money.  Money, which is a made up idea.

> Sharp's Corollary: Spammers attempt to re-define "spamming" as that
> which they do not do.
Hmm.  As I continue my analysis it seems that you are defining a
"spammer" as any one who has an idea which you do not like.  Just
because an idea is not to your liking does not mean that it does not exist.

> Finnell's Corollary: Spammers define "remove" as "validate."
Probably true.  Did you ask them?  The have phones and watch YouTube,
just like you do.

> Rule #2: If a spammer seems to be telling the truth, see Rule #1.
I don't understand this one.  You think that because I read it once I
did not absorb the information on your web page into my brain and
compute for myself an assessment of it's content?  Wow.

> Crissman's Corollary: A spammer, when caught, blames his victims.
Well, I'm sure that if no blood is being spilt that forgiveness is
possible.  Maybe you could forgive "spammers" for being so misguided?

> Moore's Corollary: Spammers' lies are seldom questioned by mainstream
> media.
Agreed.  This is probably because both "spammers" (as you define them)
and the "mainstream media" are the same goal -> MONEY.  So, you see, why
don't we just stop using money and maybe some of these problems might go

> Rule #3: Spammers are stupid.
Assumptive.  I think anyone who is able to reverse-engineer a mail
filter is educated enough to know enough about the world in order to
"abuse" it.  If we stop using money, people the make the mail filters
and those who make the "spam" could use their skill differently.

> Krueger's Corollary: Spammer lies are really stupid.
Lies always are.  All lies are exposed eventually.

> Pickett's Commentary: Spammer lies are boring.
I disagree.  Some stories are fascinating; they draw you in with a lure
and promise of something great - even if it is just a story.  Like the
story of money.  Of yeah, we made that up didn't we.

> Russell's Corollary: Never underestimate the stupidity of spammers.
If it were my web page (which I don't think it would, but hey, work with
me here), instead of that I would probably write: "Never assume people
spend their time in the same way you do, and accept that people will
choose to do different things with their time."

> Spinosa's Corollary: Spammers assume everybody is more stupid than
> themselves.
Assumptive.  I don't assume, I *KNOW* everybody spends their time

> Spammer's Standard of Discourse: Threats and intimidation trump facts
> and logic.
Facts and logics: an excellent argument.

> Rule #4: The natural course of a spamming business is to go bankrupt.
Bankrupt... to end a process or time with no money... oh dear.  Not
money again.   Hmm.

> Rules-Keeper Shaffer's Refrain: Spammers routinely prove the Rules of
> Spam are valid.
Humans never cease to amaze me at how wonderful our collective effort
has become.

Simon Tibble

> How are you going to spend your time from now on?
> With the kindest of regards from,
> Simon Tibble
> 74 Park Street
> Mountain Ash
> CF45 3YL
> ^^^ Don't you see .... we share this planet.  Let's work together to
> make it a better place :-)
>> email:   <>
>> Domain name: TIBBLE.NET
>> Registrant: Simon Tibble 74 Park Street Penrhiwceiber Mountain Ash, 
>> Rhondda Cynon Taff CF45 3YL GB 07767650385    Fax: 07767650385
>> Registration Service Provider: 08712309525



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>