Jamie Dallaire on Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:35:42 -0700 (MST)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-b] Edit consultation...


On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Elliott Hird <
penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 19 Dec 2008, at 21:29, Charles Schaefer wrote:
>
>  Answer: YES. As punishment, I assign a nominal FINE of m10 in the hope
>> that
>> it will both discourage (even accidental) spamming and encourage people to
>> use a little more caution when sending out emails.
>>
>
> INCONSISTENT.
>
> Our definition of spam is to discourage spam scams of walls of text; not
> accidental mail of links to websites that happen to be commercial in
> nature.
>
> This is ridiculous...


You can't make an official claim, because you're always the Unbeliever.

I claim the Answer to be Inconsistent, however, as per ehird's reasoning.
Also, because there is no Rule 58, as Charles pointed out. I wouldn't have
been outright opposed to a judgment of yes on rule 38 violation (even tho
it's a frivolous offense) but it definitely doesn't merit punishment (which
doesn't necessarily need to be assigned in all cases).

BP
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business