Difference between revisions of "User talk:DMorris"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(FTC: adding one more little tid bit)
(spam, spam, and spam.)
Line 8: Line 8:
 
I very much doubt you reported that spam to the Federal Trade Commission as it is the wrong organisation. It would be similar to reporting a simple act of vandalism to the FBI, nothing would happen as they would direct you to local police branch. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 22:48, 12 April 2013 (EDT)
 
I very much doubt you reported that spam to the Federal Trade Commission as it is the wrong organisation. It would be similar to reporting a simple act of vandalism to the FBI, nothing would happen as they would direct you to local police branch. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 22:48, 12 April 2013 (EDT)
 
:With all due respect, you don't know what the heck you're talking about. Read http://www.onguardonline.gov/articles/0038-spam. The local sheriff department in Charlotte County, Florida isn't going to do jack about a spammer located God knows where posting spam links on a website run by someone in New Jersey and hosted in (what ever place that isn't Charlotte County that Conservapedia's server is located). On the other hand, the Federal Trade Commission does indeed enforce federal anti-spam legislation, and they do indeed have a system for reporting spammers. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 21:31, 13 April 2013 (EDT)
 
:With all due respect, you don't know what the heck you're talking about. Read http://www.onguardonline.gov/articles/0038-spam. The local sheriff department in Charlotte County, Florida isn't going to do jack about a spammer located God knows where posting spam links on a website run by someone in New Jersey and hosted in (what ever place that isn't Charlotte County that Conservapedia's server is located). On the other hand, the Federal Trade Commission does indeed enforce federal anti-spam legislation, and they do indeed have a system for reporting spammers. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 21:31, 13 April 2013 (EDT)
 +
 +
I think you two are talking at cross purposes because you are using two very different definitions of "spam".  The common definition (OK, the really right definition is a pressed pork product....) is unsolicited commercial mass email.  This is the "spam" that most people mean, and it is indeed the subject of prosecution by authorities at various levels of government.  Within a wiki, there is another common, and very useful definition--placing an the URL of a commercial web site on a wiki page.  This is commonly called "spamming a link", and leads to having one's account canceled.  But it is not against the law on a wiki, unless one has gained access to that wiki through criminal means.  Neither the FTC, nor the FBI, nor any other government agency is interested in enforcing the Conservapedia Commandments.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:59, 14 April 2013 (EDT)

Revision as of 21:59, 14 April 2013

/Archive 1

I am not trying to cause trouble, just trying to improve what is, on the whole, a brilliant wiki NHousen 3 November 10:59 ACDT

This doesn't say that you're trying to improve what you think is a brilliant wiki. DMorris 20:31, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

FTC

I very much doubt you reported that spam to the Federal Trade Commission as it is the wrong organisation. It would be similar to reporting a simple act of vandalism to the FBI, nothing would happen as they would direct you to local police branch. Dvergne 22:48, 12 April 2013 (EDT)

With all due respect, you don't know what the heck you're talking about. Read http://www.onguardonline.gov/articles/0038-spam. The local sheriff department in Charlotte County, Florida isn't going to do jack about a spammer located God knows where posting spam links on a website run by someone in New Jersey and hosted in (what ever place that isn't Charlotte County that Conservapedia's server is located). On the other hand, the Federal Trade Commission does indeed enforce federal anti-spam legislation, and they do indeed have a system for reporting spammers. DMorris 21:31, 13 April 2013 (EDT)

I think you two are talking at cross purposes because you are using two very different definitions of "spam". The common definition (OK, the really right definition is a pressed pork product....) is unsolicited commercial mass email. This is the "spam" that most people mean, and it is indeed the subject of prosecution by authorities at various levels of government. Within a wiki, there is another common, and very useful definition--placing an the URL of a commercial web site on a wiki page. This is commonly called "spamming a link", and leads to having one's account canceled. But it is not against the law on a wiki, unless one has gained access to that wiki through criminal means. Neither the FTC, nor the FBI, nor any other government agency is interested in enforcing the Conservapedia Commandments. SamHB 21:59, 14 April 2013 (EDT)