| 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