You need to take the time to read what I am actually suggesting. I am not
giving anyone the ability to perform the thoughtless checking of all of the
report boxes. What makes you think this in any way is what I am suggesting.
There is nothing I am suggesting that would go against anything that SC is
trying to curtail.
The usefulness of this thread is not exhausted as no one has even given it a
chance to be realized. One after another, everyone has criticized my idea
and none of you even understand what I am saying. I can tell this by the
way you respond.
It is absolutely impossible for any of the fears any of you have expressed
to occur due to my suggestion. I wish just one of you would actually
attempt to understand what I am suggesting and start an intelligent
conversation about how it could be implemented without impacting any of the
fears you have brought up. I will not give up until someone can verify that
they actually understand what I am saying. So far no one has been able to.
Please stop criticizing my suggestion on unfounded fears and try to
understand it. Please listen to the suggestion.
Tell me what you are afraid of and I will explain how it can be done so that
it will not impact your fears.
Paul Coleman
"Anon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
9bnqi3$7j8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:9bnqi3$7j8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Food for thought.
>
> How many times have you highlighted a file name, pressed the delete
button,
> had the confirm message come up and AUTOMATICALLY pressed confirm/enter
> without a second thought. THEN realized that you should *not* have deleted
> that file?
>
> This is same as the *thoughtless* checking of all the "send report" boxes
in
> the SC report form.
>
> *This* is the action that SC is trying to curtail.
>
> ps: let's just end this thread *now* as it has exhausted its usefulness.
>
> "Paul Coleman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> 9bnfuo$2sh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:9bnfuo$2sh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > First, I have no idea what 'IOW' stands for, I can only guess. No, I
> don't
> > want to know.
> > If you read through an understand my suggestion, you will know that this
> > could not happen. It would only not send a report to your ISP if it
would
> > have traversed back to it because the URL of your own website is in the
> > message. It is your own personal website or domain I am suggesting to
> > register as always innocent. Wouldn't that always be the case, or do
you
> > SPAM yourself while sleep walking and you're trying to catch yourself
> doing
> > it? (light hearted humor)
> >
> > Paul Coleman
> >
> >
> > "Robi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > 9bnb6g$qd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:9bnb6g$qd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > IOW is the
> > > ISP I'll send my lart to, responsible or is it an innocent bystander?
> > > My (to stop using the you and your) ISP might be a spam-friendly
house,
> > and
> > > with your suggestion I would not lart them because I marked them
> innocent.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
SpamCop-Help mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://news.spamcop.net/mailman/listinfo/spamcop-help
