X-Message-Number: 31243
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:39:41 -0700
From: Kitty Antonik Wakfer <>
Subject: Re: My Cryonics e-newsletter came through formatted well, no ...
References: <>

On 12/05/2008 03:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:
>
> Message #31232
> From: "Keith F. Lynch" <>
> Subject: Re: My Cryonics e-newsletter came through formatted well, no ...
> Date: Thu,  4 Dec 2008 13:10:07 -0500 (EST)
>
>  wrote:
>   
>> Content was reasonably informative, only occasionally populist, and
>> clearly did not do a disservice to the field of cryonics.  You may
>> disagree with this.  And, you are welcome to.
>>     
>
> Spam is primarily about consent, not content.  Sending unsolicited
> bulk email, especially to people who have made very clear that they
> don't want it, is extremely rude, [snip]
>   
Along this point of sending unsolicited messages via email (also postal 
mail, telephone, in person or any mechanism that will effect an 
unavoidable time usage by the receiver), I suggest that others look at 
the Natural Social Contract (NSC) definition of Connection Harm, a 
special case of Responsible Harm. 
(http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#responsible_harm ) Reading the 
annotation for this definition (click on heading "Responsible Harm") - 
specifically section 6) - will provide more understanding for the 
inclusion of UnChosen diversion of one's attention (interruption) in 
this Contract, one of the two joint methods proposed for social order 
based on the principles of Social Meta-Needs 
(http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html ).

Reading and following the Special Note at the top of the NSC will 
provide a reader with the opportunity to gain the most benefit from 
reading that document.

[snip]
>> I liked my email newsletter.  And if I didn't, I have a delete key.
>>     
>
> "Just press delete" is another mantra of spammers.  In an ideal world,
> spammers would be sentenced to jail with a terminal, and told to "just
> press delete" once for every spam they ever sent.  Twice a day they'd
> get a message that their meal was ready, and if they deleted *that*
> message, they'd skip that meal, so they'd better pay attention, as
> everyone else who uses email has to.  Many spammers would be unable
> to complete this sentence in a natural lifetime.
>   
While it is amusing to imagine a spammer in this situation, punishment 
does nothing to restitute any person who has been harmed by the 
spammer's interruptions - by the loss of time that might otherwise have 
been used to increase to hir lifetime happiness. In a proper society, 
those who have been physically harmed (and a forced loss of time is 
definitely physical) would be owed restitution by the violator, of the 
type and amount that only each individual harmed can determine, with all 
others deciding through Social Preferencing (the other, and more 
universal, method for assuring social order in a proper society) whether 
what is required of the violator (spammer in this case) is acceptable to 
each of them. (See http://selfsip.org/focus/preferencing.html and also 
http://selfsip.org/solutions/Social_Preferencing.html )

**Kitty Antonik Wakfer

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org 
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org 
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=31243