Therefore, anytime I say something like “my comment above” or “my post above” or something similar, I am referring to my original post and comment, and other comments, on Ronald’s site. If you have no idea what I am talking about, and would like to know, please head on and read “Mixing Spam and Invitation Perceptions Together“, as that will hopefully explain everything about the context of this e-mail. Thank you. 
First of all, Thanks for the comment. Ayya, this is going to be another long comment, which is definitely not good. I am hungry again, and I really need to write this quickly. It seems that the biggest issue here is the way a debate is carried on; I am trying to carry the argument using the logical points from my original post which are still valid as of now. My post was about showing how assumptions and perceptions about things can be different online, and hard to judge, and how peeves about online assumptions can be done in a peeve week project. You and George are focusing on how me thinking and assuming negatively about something that I consider part of a bulk mailing is not good, and that I should be not voice any concern, even through doubts and doubting my own self publicly, about anything and everything that comes through my contact form [even though the admins at MyBiggestComplaint have said and admitted that they did e-mail the same thing to multiple people].
I am trying to bring the debate back to the common points, since debating about two different things is going to go in circles. So I will try to include all points in this response, including all of your concerns too. Please let me know if I miss anything, if am confusing the issue more than necessary by going into too much detail or after some point that can be ignored, since I want to make sure you and George do not feel offended in any manner, since my original post wasn’t directed at you or the art of using contact forms but at Tommy from MyBiggestComplaint and the supposed approach taken to contact me, and the real approach that did happen.
You asked for proof that more than 2 people got the e-mail, right? That is a good and valid question. Instead of me offering any answer, the Admins responded here, saying that they sent e-mails to 4-5 people and using copy-pasted templates:
My Assumption of my MyBiggestComplaint Complaint about MyBiggestComplaint
Does that suffice? I also replied there, addressing the admin since he/she explained what they did. It seems they did e-mail me and about 4 other authors, with the same e-mail, though with good intentions. Again, the point is not that someone contacted me through my contact form and I am going to annihiliate the universe; the point I was making is the “perception.” My entire post talks about views, assumptions, perceptions, and doubts in various forms. Please tell me something: is that not a nice or logical way to point out what one things is a bad thing, by assuming only, doubting your own self, and doubting different assumptions too, and making sure there is ample room for anyone to come and criticize myself also? And all in public? Isn’t that the only proper way to criticize a tactic one does not appreciate? Or should I simply post “Tommy spammed me. MyBiggestComplaint.com are spammers. Boycott the spammers!”? I hope not, since I’m not good at pointing out fingers without any doubts or ways for someone to disagree with me, if I was to communicate an idea. Communicate is the key here, and not dictatorship. Even dictators communicate more than forcing things and not allowing any critics.
Ronald is aiming for a fair discussion
Also, regarding Ronald, the poor chap is only doing his job, making sure that one of his authors does not get criticized in disguise unethically, and the anonymous factors give one an advantage over the other. Wouldn’t you do something similar to what Ronald is trying to do? Imagine: he was aiming to ask for the real identity for someone criticizing someone else on his site, which is fine even if it is not revealed. Did you know that Ronald, when I told him about this post, was the one who said “Make sure you have all your facts and assumptions straight.” I apologize personally if you feel offended; Ronald is running a very nice site and concept here, trying to make his authors more popular and succeed instead of himself. I feel bad for anyone going after him or anyone else on this site, no matter how right I may be, because of my post. He has policies, and so do admins at MyBiggestComplaint; my comment there had names included, “Tommy from MyBiggestComplaint”, and the name was removed by the MyBiggestComplaint admin because it was against the policy. That is 100% awesome, since policies exist to do some use hopefully for both the site and the readers, and I appreciate it completely too, specially since my complaint involves several assumptions and that I may be wrong on some levels [read below to please find out that I was right on all levels, and that the spam assumption is not valid anymore because the admin over at MyBiggestComplaint says that they had good intentions, which is nice. Thanks admin!] Ronald responded to Goerge’s comment already, so hopefully Goerge and Ronald should be happy with each other now [I hope], and if not, George can ask more.
Also, I am SO glad that Ronald found the above comment in the spam. Sure, it’s critical in the eyes of many, but it raises an important point: how does Bes go about assuming something like this, and when approached, how do others and Bes defend their assumptions or agree that some of their assumptions may be wrong? I have already pointed in my original post that I may be wrong, and in my above comment too, and in this very comment, I am assuming 100% that at least one of my assumption fears has been quelled because the admin from MyBiggestComplaint said that he/she/they did e-mail different authors the same e-mail, but they had good intentions. I love good intentions, and I like it. Ronald has good intentions too, and I like that too. I hope you and George like it too.
I complemented MyBiggestComplaint on purpose for one main reason: I assumed something negative about them. Is it bad to complement someone you are pointing out in a complaint?
Thanks for reading my complaint over at mybiggestcomplaint.com . Did you read the last part of my comment above? I clearly stated that I was happy that my complaint was posted; the screenshot was posted in case my complaint wasn’t approved. That screenshot gives MyBiggestComplaint more advantage, as I show that even though I am doubting something, something else is clearly a very good thing. Why would you consider it “calling out” someone when the admins themselves don’t think it was calling out someone? I wasn’t thinking of that. I actually congratulated the admins in my comment above, saying that they did approve my complaint and that such services rock that allow complaints of their own service. I have a character where if I see something positive or something doubtful in my own assumption, I will point it out. I don’t like criticizing someone completely if I can avoid it. Is it a bad thing to ever talk about doubts or good intentions about someone when questioning the motives of something or that someone? It seems that even if I doubt myself or appreciate something about MyBiggestComplaint, some people think that what I am and was arguing originally should never be argued; am I being expected to be 100% critical and not doubtful at all. Should I be criticizing MyBiggestComplaints on all levels and everything possible, since it seems that doing or saying anything nice is taken out of proportion without any doubt, even though my own initial post sends a lot of doubt to anyone who reads it because I start the post itself by saying clearly that I am questioning a lot of things and that I may be wrong. I like questioning things before assuming; that is why my entire assumptions are based on questions. Like I said before, questions are better than assumptions.
Also, no matter what is said now, it doesn’t matter how things at handled now, since like I said I love services which do not censor people, whether on their own or because of fear of being criticized; I took the screenshot clearly also to show george that I was using the site and not just criticizing it, thus putting myself in a position deliberately in public to show “Hey, Bes is using the site and complaining? Whaaa?” so that I can show how serious I am about my assumptions and about me doubting my own assumptions.
My initial post is about the way I was bulk e-mailed and how I still see it as spam. It has been over 24 hours, and no reply from Tommy. That is ok; it seems you and george are doing a good job at responding, and the admin and another commentor over at the site have also done a good job at responding. I am not sure why you would be feeling berated or patronized [again, that is sincerely not my intention] when I am only talking about Tommy’s way of contacting me.
Someone responding nicely now has nothing to do with what happened earlier. They are 2 separate issues.
Also, this is very important: The admins can respond to me nicely on their site now, and I like that. Does that change most my post? No. What does responding to my post online now have to do with bulk e-mailing me before to get me to the site? The admins can donate $1 billion to orphanages today, and that will still not change the fact that I was bulk e-mailed; the tactic used to lure me in or make that site more popular was and is the point of my original post and my comment. Does that make sense? See the point I am trying to make? No matter what is being done, the issue still stands. However, the admins have clearly admitted that they did the above. So everything stands other than the “Spam labeling.” From the admin’s reactions, it seems that they did all of what I said in the post except spam. So, everything is correct except spamming, since spam is debatable, and they say their intention was good, which is nice. I am glad I left a lot of room for doubting some or all of my own assumptions; isn’t that good?
Initial assumptions based on the fact of bulk e-mailing, and their validity
I like the admin’s comment, and so far, it seems my following assumptions are valid [I'll add or remove if I remember something more]:
- I was contacted via bulk e-mail, or as the commentor on the site said, in an e-mail sent to more than one person, someone contacted me using templates advertising a service. That is fine; like I said, I am using the service on purpose to show a point. I appreciate being contacted directly to try a product or a service.
- I was lured to the site assuming I was the only one contacted. Eh, I wasn’t. This is transparency, but the admin has responded now, which is very nice.
- My e-mails were never answered, but admin has answered me personally via the comment and via e-mail [yes, he/she responded to me after I filed the complaint], which is very nice too!
Also, I am not patronizing you but answering; I hope George didn’t get patronized or offended by an answer or my answer, and I hope you don’t either.
Basic summary: I questioned something, assumed that I was being bulk e-mailed and spammed, lured away from another person running the same idea, however, I also posted clearly and directly about my assumptions probably being doubtful and wrong, about me probably taking some things out of proportion, me appreciating any nice thing on MyBiggestComplaint, and me clearly acknowledging that admins are explaining stuff, etc [I will add more here if I can remember].
Isn’t that an awesome way to analyze critically and with open doubt and counter-claims in theory, which is what I was doing?
Ok, I hope that is clear enough. Now, if I can be excused again, I must go eat! Please let me know what you think, and also feel free to say anything here.
« Show less..
