spam
3 messages in this thread |
Started on 2001-07-23
spam
From: Randy Hall (randy@mapsurfer.com) |
Date: 2001-07-23 19:37:10 UTC-04:00
> That why they call it spam?
It is believed the term "spam" as used on the 'net originally
derives from a rather famous Monty Python sketch
(http://www.detritus.org/spam/skit.html), and the repetitive
use of the word therein.
"Spam", and "Unsolicited Commercial E-mail", originally were
not the same thing, but "spam" has come to take over the latter.
> although there have been a couple of sales pitches break through
This can be reduced by turning off "allow non-members to post"
on the list settings. Historically, it has always been thought that
the benefits of allowing non-members to post outweighed the negatives
of the spam. If people feel differently now, this can be changed.
> (sometimes I wonder if they're really mystery clues in disguise: that
> would be a hoot!).
There is a web site that will convert clues (and other text) to
spam and vice versa :-) The url escapes me at the moment, though,
but I have considered using this for this purpose :-)
***
Now, regarding pulling my clues -- this is about two things, the
implicit belief that if the hunter gets lost or has some other
misfortune, or causes damage to the park, the clue is somehow to
blame, or that the writer owes the hunter some sort of fun.
This is not the case, but I sensed belief in this sentiment
in the NJ incident when Todd briefly pulled some of his clues,
and sense this sentiment now. I guess I feel my clues are like
GNU software, take them for what they are worth, and use them if
you want, but they don't owe anyone anything. I spend alot of
time on them and they are a labor of love, if you like them great,
if you ignore them fine, but there is simply no place for repeatedly
criticizing clues after the criticism has been acknowledged, or
expecting the clues to provide some level of enjoyment or be written
in such a way that the probability of misinterpretation is below some
percentage or that they will be immune to changes in the landscape
is below some percentage, or that they be checked on some number
of times per year.
Todd chose to revise his clues. I do not feel my clues would take
to the recommended revisions and retain their appeal to those
who enjoy them, including myself, nor do I feel revision would
eliminate this problem in principle -- if the clue is 'walk outside
and look in your mailbox, and make sure you take the cobblestone
walkway from your door to the mailbox, and make sure it is the
red mailbox adjacent to the Japanese maple', the problem remains,
in principle.
Rather than debate this, as there is a real frustrating sense that
the community is not interested in dealing with heavy issues
(from me, anyway), and rather than continue to risk that the hunters
expectations are different than my assumptions of them (despite
mountains of verbiage about this issue on my web site and numerous
explanations on-list), I chose the only rational response available.
I will be exploring alternatives to allow the clues to remain on-line
for all to view, as sample/historical work, but those alternatives
will cost money, so I'm not sure this will happen.
Cheers
Re: spam
From: (defygravity@snet.net) |
Date: 2001-07-24 04:43:31 UTC
> > (sometimes I wonder if they're really mystery clues in disguise:
that
> > would be a hoot!).
>
> There is a web site that will convert clues (and other text) to
> spam and vice versa :-) The url escapes me at the moment, though,
> but I have considered using this for this purpose :-)
Not to dwell on the porn thing, but I heard of an encrypter who would
convert messages to a picture format, or rather I think, the message
would ride along like a hitchhiker on the picture's code.
Aili
that
> > would be a hoot!).
>
> There is a web site that will convert clues (and other text) to
> spam and vice versa :-) The url escapes me at the moment, though,
> but I have considered using this for this purpose :-)
Not to dwell on the porn thing, but I heard of an encrypter who would
convert messages to a picture format, or rather I think, the message
would ride along like a hitchhiker on the picture's code.
Aili
Re: spam
From: Bill (bburk@worldnet.att.net) |
Date: 2001-07-24 20:28:23 UTC
Randy, I agree with your statements about the clues.
I feel that if I write clues and people find the box without extra
hints/help, that proves the clues are understandable. The fact that
ALL people can't find the box does not make MY clues suspect.
If the case was that ALL people could not find my boxes using the
clues, then I would suspect my clue writing ability.
I voluntarily decided to participate in letterboxing, and take all
the risks and rewards that come with it.
If I should run across a clue or set of clues that I can not solve,
then maybe I am not in the right frame of mind to be looking for that
box today, I'll try again another time, or not, it's my choice. I
certainly don't blame the clue writer!
Let's all try to remember that this activity is for each individual's
enjoyment, however that individual interprets enjoyment.
Isn't there and old saying something about "let he who is without
guilt cast the first stone".
Who on this list qualifies??
----
Bill
> Now, regarding pulling my clues -- this is about two things, the
> implicit belief that if the hunter gets lost or has some other
> misfortune, or causes damage to the park, the clue is somehow to
> blame, or that the writer owes the hunter some sort of fun.
>
> This is not the case, but I sensed belief in this sentiment
> in the NJ incident when Todd briefly pulled some of his clues,
> and sense this sentiment now. I guess I feel my clues are like
> GNU software, take them for what they are worth, and use them if
> you want, but they don't owe anyone anything. I spend alot of
> time on them and they are a labor of love, if you like them great,
> if you ignore them fine, but there is simply no place for repeatedly
> criticizing clues after the criticism has been acknowledged, or
> expecting the clues to provide some level of enjoyment or be written
> in such a way that the probability of misinterpretation is below
some
> percentage or that they will be immune to changes in the landscape
> is below some percentage, or that they be checked on some number
> of times per year.
>
> Todd chose to revise his clues. I do not feel my clues would take
> to the recommended revisions and retain their appeal to those
> who enjoy them, including myself, nor do I feel revision would
> eliminate this problem in principle -- if the clue is 'walk outside
> and look in your mailbox, and make sure you take the cobblestone
> walkway from your door to the mailbox, and make sure it is the
> red mailbox adjacent to the Japanese maple', the problem remains,
> in principle.
>
> Rather than debate this, as there is a real frustrating sense that
> the community is not interested in dealing with heavy issues
> (from me, anyway), and rather than continue to risk that the
hunters
> expectations are different than my assumptions of them (despite
> mountains of verbiage about this issue on my web site and numerous
> explanations on-list), I chose the only rational response available.
>
> I will be exploring alternatives to allow the clues to remain on-
line
> for all to view, as sample/historical work, but those alternatives
> will cost money, so I'm not sure this will happen.
>
> Cheers
I feel that if I write clues and people find the box without extra
hints/help, that proves the clues are understandable. The fact that
ALL people can't find the box does not make MY clues suspect.
If the case was that ALL people could not find my boxes using the
clues, then I would suspect my clue writing ability.
I voluntarily decided to participate in letterboxing, and take all
the risks and rewards that come with it.
If I should run across a clue or set of clues that I can not solve,
then maybe I am not in the right frame of mind to be looking for that
box today, I'll try again another time, or not, it's my choice. I
certainly don't blame the clue writer!
Let's all try to remember that this activity is for each individual's
enjoyment, however that individual interprets enjoyment.
Isn't there and old saying something about "let he who is without
guilt cast the first stone".
Who on this list qualifies??
----
Bill
> Now, regarding pulling my clues -- this is about two things, the
> implicit belief that if the hunter gets lost or has some other
> misfortune, or causes damage to the park, the clue is somehow to
> blame, or that the writer owes the hunter some sort of fun.
>
> This is not the case, but I sensed belief in this sentiment
> in the NJ incident when Todd briefly pulled some of his clues,
> and sense this sentiment now. I guess I feel my clues are like
> GNU software, take them for what they are worth, and use them if
> you want, but they don't owe anyone anything. I spend alot of
> time on them and they are a labor of love, if you like them great,
> if you ignore them fine, but there is simply no place for repeatedly
> criticizing clues after the criticism has been acknowledged, or
> expecting the clues to provide some level of enjoyment or be written
> in such a way that the probability of misinterpretation is below
some
> percentage or that they will be immune to changes in the landscape
> is below some percentage, or that they be checked on some number
> of times per year.
>
> Todd chose to revise his clues. I do not feel my clues would take
> to the recommended revisions and retain their appeal to those
> who enjoy them, including myself, nor do I feel revision would
> eliminate this problem in principle -- if the clue is 'walk outside
> and look in your mailbox, and make sure you take the cobblestone
> walkway from your door to the mailbox, and make sure it is the
> red mailbox adjacent to the Japanese maple', the problem remains,
> in principle.
>
> Rather than debate this, as there is a real frustrating sense that
> the community is not interested in dealing with heavy issues
> (from me, anyway), and rather than continue to risk that the
hunters
> expectations are different than my assumptions of them (despite
> mountains of verbiage about this issue on my web site and numerous
> explanations on-list), I chose the only rational response available.
>
> I will be exploring alternatives to allow the clues to remain on-
line
> for all to view, as sample/historical work, but those alternatives
> will cost money, so I'm not sure this will happen.
>
> Cheers