Chuq started a post here by saying I said something,
| On 5/5/01 2:41 PM, "David W. Tamkin" <email@example.com> wrote:
but he edited out my attribution to JC Dill, the person who actually wrote
the words Chuq put under my name (relying, I suppose, on the extra column of
citation marks to imply that I was quoting someone else but still not saying
whom). It was JC, not I, who said,
D> Supposedly there are places where one can opt-in to receive "targeted
D> spam", ...
Chuq's response was this:
V> Point of terminology -- if you opt in, you're saying you want it. If you
V> say you want it, it's not spam. "targeted spam" is a bad phrase.
... which really addresses JC's words more than it addresses mine. I agree
with Chuq there and don't like muddying the definition of "spam" either. In
fact, in a part of my post that Chuq did not quote, I said this:
T> I did opt into getting the messages and I continue to accept them because
T> I continue to use the services, so I'm not going to call them spam.
Note the word "not."
V> All e-marketing is not spam, just as all spam isn't e-marketing (there's
V> religious spam, there's porn spam, etc..)
While "all that glitters is not gold" is a time-honored exception to clarity
much as "put your best foot forward" is to diction, let's say rather that not
all e-marketing is spam, just as not all spam is e-marketing. To say that
all of one is not the other is to deny any overlap; not only does that over-
lap exist, but I'd venture that the spam that is e-marketing outweighs (in
bits per day) spam that is not e-marketing and also outweighs e-marketing
that is not spam. [Possibly it outweighs both of the one-but-not-the-other
groups together; certainly it does among the mail that I receive.]