In conclusion, it was stated, "Spam, like one true faith, is in eye of beholder. Again, if it looks like a bird, it might be a duck. Better condor dies than risk a quack."

These of course are just excerpts. If you would care to read his entire message to me, you may do so at bottom of this page:

http://shopmystate.com/niba/BillP.html

NO SAFE HAVEN: On two occasions, I have found myself squarely in cross-hairs of radicals or angry that wear shield of SpamCop. I publish articles for free-reprint on web --- much as this article has come to you today.

The SpamCop's suggested that I was hiding behind free- reprint rights connected to my articles. They suggested that I was encouraging spam by making my work available to be published by anyone. In response to their suggestions that I am enemy, I have added one term to my Terms of Reprint:

* You may not use this article in UCE (Unsolicited Commercial Email). Email distribution of this article must be opt-in email only.

Despite this step, I have been accused of spam twice because my article appeared in a newsletter that a complaint was lodged against. In both cases, SpamCop member did not file a complaint against person who was responsible for newsletter --- they filed against everyone who was in body of email.

Their complaint was received by editor of newsletter, article writers, advertisers, and anyone who was fortunate enough to be mentioned in resources section or Letters to Editor. We each had our ISP and Upline Providers contacted if our email address appeared in body of newsletter and our webhosts contacted if our domain appeared within body of newsletter.

The only way I can completely avoid spam complaints against my domains is to stop writing altogether. I am a writer. That is what writers do, we write. To please SpamCop's, I must quit being a writer or just "stay home."

POLICING THE POLICE. This is silly. If we cannot trust cops to make sure they nab right person, who can we trust?

There is in fact a movement afoot to bring SpamCop down called "Arresting SpamCop":

http://www.niba.shopmystate.com/

While some of SpamCop members are simply tired of same kinds of spam that irritates us, there are others within movement who have an axe to grind with everyone who crosses their path.

To suggest to a SpamCop member that folks should be trained in nuances of who to complain against in a complaint, you can expect a reply like this. "Jerry" answered my suggestion precisely this way:

"SpamCop users are literate, intelligent, virtually all college educated, well-versed in spam, and are more computer-savvy than 99% of world's population. It is presumptuous and arrogant in extreme to imply they need a Learning Annex class to detect spam."

The question I have is to whom term "arrogant" should be applied?

This is what my webhost said about my last SpamCop spam complaint, "As far as I know spam is generally considered to be high volume unsolicited email. So, as long as you are not doing that then I am not sure why it would be called spam."

CONCLUSION: While anti-spammers rail on ugliness of spam, it seems they are perfectly willing and likely prefer that only people permitted to send email should be those they directly give permission to.

Personally, I find practices of radicals of SpamCop to be more offensive than activities of spammers. It is a terrible thing to say, I know, but spammers simply irritate me and SpamCop fanatics try to oppress my activities.

Osama bin Laden brought external terrorism to United States on September 11th, 2001. But truth is that terrorists have long existed in our country on our own soil, and great numbers of them proudly were shield of SpamCop.

We all must make a choice, do we "stay home" or do we fight oppressors who seek to diminish our freedom.

Two Giant Leaps

They took a giant step by taking advantage of specialized software now available. It scans any document and automatically sends their "spam" to every URL and email address found. Fascinating. I'm now a spammer because my work appears in an ezine they have defined as spam. Nuts. This usually amounts to someone forgetting they subscribed.

Their latest step is even more absurd. You are now "spamming" with a 100% opt-in list if no confirmation is required. What in world does confirmation have to do with unsolicited bulk email?

My thanks-for-subscribing message includes URLs to goodies. And a URL that can be clicked to automatically unsubscribe.

When you open your front door to a knock, do you close it and require another?

Facts About Subscriber Counts.

You're bound to lose a few list members along way. Some choose to unsubscribe. More make a change in their email address and do not think to subscribe again. Thus you will inevitably lose membership each month. Possibly 2% of your list.

So long as number of new subscribers exceeds number lost each month, your list will continue to grow. But try a confirmation request, and you may find number of new members does not replace those lost.

Now explain to me how I'm going to grow a business in such fashion. And further, explain how SpamCops can decide that a list that doesn't require confirmation is sending spam. Then go on and make it clear just what SpamCops intends to accomplish with this demand. I don't think they know. They simply delight in hurting people.

So What's Next On The Agenda

Right. You guessed it. Content. If SpamCops can make confirmation indirectly "law," what's to prevent them from judging content of a given newsletter as unsuitable, and thus spam? Maybe a piece such as this one directed at evil done by such a rag-tag bunch of low-lifes.

A scary thought to me. This would open a whole new world of opportunity to destroy helpless individuals.

Fighting Back

Don't even think about it. If you are attacked by SpamCops, respond minimally and politely as required, and get on with your business.

These people absolutely thrive on conflict. They glow with inner "strength" in heat of battle. They can amass an array of other right-thinkers against you.

Forget it, for it's a battle you can not win. It is impossible to reason with irrationality.

Hitting Where It Hurts

However, you can now hit back. And in right place. Their pocket book.

In a recent issue of her ezine, "The iCop Whistle Blower," jl scott offered a neat piece about absurdities of SpamCops. She wrapped with a positive and powerful suggestion. I want to do same here.

Serious minded people are joining in a class action suit against these people. You can contribute information or choose to participate. Here are some key links.

Victim Form - Explain How You've Been Hurt

Notes about how this all got started

Keep up on what is happening

In Closing ...

Here's a comment from jl scott. "I salute people who are determined to organize this class action suit. Clearly, if we don't do it ourselves, these wild-eyed lunatics will continue to hurt decent and ethical businesses."

I applaud her stand. Come join in; water's fine.