With apologies to Robert Pirsig, I have slavishly copied style of his very famous book - "Zen and Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" - into title of this article. That, of course, is where any further comparison stops.

I do, however, have a good reason for concocting my title.

I recall that Mr Pirsig's book explored themes for an improvement in self (in particular) and society (by inference), and one of those themes was QUALITY. Applied to every aspect of our existence, quality of what we do can have a profound effect, from highly positive to lowly negative. Whatever we say and do, write and send, can have those effects, obviously.

So, maybe it's not so much quantity of SPAM that we all get that is problem (although, there are limits, right!). Maybe, we should be concerned more with quality - in broadest sense - of message? In particular, I'm thinking of messages that are relevant, appropriate, targeted and - dare I say it - even helpful!

However, SPAM we all love to hate - shot-gun style, bulk commercial email, splattering all through system - would obviously rate very low in quality stakes, for most people (although, just quietly, I understand there is a secret network of SPAMmers who simply delight in sending each other into lowly orbit every day?), but business-to-business email must surely have its proper place. And, that would include all businesses, of course, not just Blue Chip and Silicon Valley...

Which, very soon (if not already), will begin to trouble strident anti-spammers even more: as more and more people set up their own online e-businesses all over world, there may come a time when there are more businesses online than there are mere consumers.

Hmmm...now, there's a thought! ;-(o)

You are no doubt aware that many agencies - government and private - continue to grapple with SPAM genie, but ultimately it is, I think, impossible to "get it back in bottle".

In that regard, I have read a number of articles - and have even received an unsolicited email about "permission marketing"! I have responded to some but, try as I might, none have returned with an unequivocal, "dyed-in-the-wool", "shake-it-till-it-breaks" definition for permission marketing. I suspect it will be a while before I do.

But, I would be eternally grateful to anybody who can supply it!

Somebody once said, "Nothing happens until somebody sells something." Well...fatuous as that may sound, we are all trying to "sell" something to somebody. Right?

By all means protect consumer to a reasonable and effective degree, with appropriate legislation and penalties. But, it would be shooting ourselves in foot (or worse) to burden e-business with self-destructive restrictions and penalties.

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.