a_guide_to_accusing_other_skites_of_spamming andru235 1. find a blathe that fails to adequately impress you. 2. decide that, since it doesn't impress you, it therefore couldn't possibly impress anyone else. 3. ignore the possibility that your very accusation of spamming will itself be regarded as spam by someone else. 4. ignore the probability that the accused parties will never change their blathing styles to suit you, regardless of how well you articulate your disdain. 5. ignore the fact that anyone who has blathed more than ten times has been, at least once, regarded as blathing mere clutter. 6. ignore the fact that even the "best" blathes can also be (and have also been) regarded as mere clutter. ignore the relativity of tastes. 7. ignore the possibility that you are - conciously or not - sending pain out, to compensate for the pain within. ignore the fact that you are being petty. 8. ignore the fact that if you like a skite, you'd never accuse them of spamming, yet if you dislike a skite, anything they write you'll regard as spam. continue ignoring the fact that you are being petty. 9. try not to think about the fact that you could, instead, simply ignore the offending posts, and go read something else ... *gasp* ... 10. make a vague, inarticulate post about why the accused parties are spamming. try to conceal the inevitable pettiness of such an accusation. 11. seize on any grammar or spelling errors so as to affect a perfection that you do not actually possess. 12. do not make any attempt to justify your accusation; since your only "evidence" is your own personal opinion, and perhaps the opinion of a cohort or ten, pretend as if your opinion(s) is/are more important than the opinion(s) of the accused parties (it isn't, but you already know that) 051212 ... pendejo 22 the other option would be to write a really self-righteous, arrogant, stubborn, daffy-like list such as this. 051212 ... walrie i actually liked this list, it made me laugh. people should really lighten up. look! flying sheep! i love fleece! 051212 ... - meta 051213 ... p2 just because peter cried 'wolf' when there was none around doesn't mean that there are no wolves out there 051213 ... meta meta 051213 ... andru235 using "daffy"-like derisively is absurd, since i generally enjoy daffy's posts. see #12. you, however, are apparently afflicted with person-specific contemptuousness. see #8. per the "self-righteous" accusation; well, we all are. it is no less self-righteous on your part to accuse me of being self-righteous. as if you've never been self-righteous! how self-righteous of you! congratulation! see #3-9, 12. was i arrogant? i presumed no excess of self-importance, the crux of my argument being that all persons, and that which they blathe, are important. on the other hand, i was and am satisfied with myself, which is a quality of pride (certainly i am not ashamed), and an excess of pride constitutes arrogance. so perhaps i was arrogant, perhaps i was not. "excess" is so very relative. see #6; apply variation. lastly, was i stubborn? why, of course i was. i'm human, aren't i? stubbornness is universal. you didn't exactly change *your* position after reading this guide, you obstinate darling, you!!! so, we were both stubborn. hooray. now, we both must review item #4. i know this post shant change your mind. in short, seeing as we are both self-righteous and stubborn, and possibly arrogant, we should probably not date. we are way too similar. tennis, anyone? 051213 ... andru235 p.s. tu culo es muy bonito 051213 ... commonsense you're still a spammer. you and your little cronie oren. the more you resist, the more you succumb, no? spam on, noobcake 051215 ... hyena you you can acknowledge your own pettiness and perspective and rip into someone anyway. but if you do, try to make it entertaining. three's got to be some redeeming quality. 051215 ... andru235 was that ... an "argument" ? does calling someone meaningless names without backing up one's cause with any evidence whatsoever now constitute "commonsense" ? i must give this new "commonsense" of yours a try : "you are a big poopy head, languishing upon the festoons of a bewildered tentacle." this "commonsense" you have so graciously illustrated for us just doesn't do much for me, but that's alright; de gustibus non est disputandum, right? but seriously, i do admire you for acknowledging your own lack of commonsense, per your name, and therefore shall refrain from refering you to this article's clause #3, 7, 8 and 10. besides, per #4, you wouldn't change anyway. i eagerly await your next trite spam accusation, friend! what a fine day! we are both stubborn, self-righteous, without commonsense, and possibly arrogant; clearly we both are enjoying this state of ourselves. a question: why seek out and read my posting at omnia_vincet_amor if i am such a burden unto your mind? i think you are secretly in love with me; but your repressed fascination masquerades as revulsion. you're a closeted andru235ophile, aren't you! otherwise you'd simply ignore me, like the others. that would explain why, despite your spite, you went on to so effectively illustrate the points i have here laid out. "sic sumimus voluptas in nostra contemptio," and good day to you, my fellow statesman. p.s. you can have the last word here, since it is bound to be a delightful and intriguing whopper. 051216 ... its the truth! The idea of Spam denotes that an unsolicited message is being SENT to multiple parties, like finding those pesky flyers in your mailbox every Saturday morning or those dick “enlargement” emails. Fuck. Anyway, I want to point out that blather is incapable of spam since no one is sending anything to anyone; everybody accesses the content which they desire, in other words: you can read what you want or ignore it. Simple. Therefore, fuck off! If you don’t like what’s here, you’re more than welcome to express your disgust or ignore it, just get your terminology straight. For someone that calls himself or herself “commonsense” you don’t seem to have much of it. 051216 ... epitome of incomprehensibility I concur. "C'est vrai." It's always fun to quote Latin, andru, mais je ne le sais pas. Anyway, to reiterate previous writer's argument... blather stuff is not SPAM! *epitome resists the temptation to write a fake email address in box and challenge other skites to send spam mail* La la la. 051216 ... birdmad complaints about "blather_pollution" are, in fact the worst form of said problem in and of themselves. the anti-spam crusader, in deigning to waste so much time and space complaining about "spam" is, by definition, guiltier of it than the target of the accusation 051220 ... oren Wow, I'm a cronie! 051220 ... meta thekx21banclub 060313 ... eggory rather than the advice that you should read the topics you want to and not the ones you don't, i think instead that if you don't like that you don't like some of the topics at blather.net, avoid the site entirely. i'd like to say this except that it's all self-contradictory though i just did. well you said your opinion and i say mine. it's all in the nature of the site i guess. let the debate continue. 060316 ... taking own advice in 3...2... every argument has been made. the best argument is not to speak 060317 ... dipperwell Honestly, the "there is no spam" and "death to the spammers" takes are just two flawed extremes. I'm the middle-way type. For example, in a certain other blather community which shall remain nameless, you don't just start a new blathe at any whim. A lot of thought and intent goes into the new blathe, and more often than not, the resulting blathe has some significant substance. It was originally hard for me to adjust. I was full of blather_blue urges; to start a blathe, for example, called "dipperwell_loves_(insert skite here)" until I learned to be more probing, and blathe under the skite's name. It was annoying, conforming to rules of sparseness, but now I appreciate them and (yes) wish blather_blue were similar. Because I think we have lost reverence for the act, even of forming a new blathe. It isn't a special privilege one gets to do with a wonderful idea, here it's a thing you throw up there whenever you feel like. So we have tons of blathes that don't really lead to a) any kind of meaningful discussion b) poignant, marking blathes unto themselves c) something even remotely original. And, for the record, that's okay. But if you go to the aforementioned other community, and see that each tender little blathe is, for the most part, quite something indeed...if you are the type who enjoys meaning and poignancy more than casual friendly banter (I can get that anywhere, personally) it makes it more like home. 060317 ... dipperwell Which is to say, it's all very nice to demonstrate free speech etc, but I prefer a place where they freely choose to restrain themselves. Sort of like mass consumerism. Really nice that we have the money to take part in it, yes, but does that mean we have to? Because if you linger by some modern kids with their Christmas presents, you see the reverence is gone and there is nothing in those boxes but cold cash and cold smiles. 060317 ... zeke d: that was exceptionally well written. thank you for saying it. i think you have converted me. see you on the other side. 060317 ... grumbling pats on the back for the good children 060317 ... Goodbye Yet another place at which I am but a detriment! I shall leave at once, and never return. You have heard the last from me! 060317 ... syringe Blather can never be shoehorned into one person's (or one group's) expectations, nor should it be. The group of elitist_blatherskites who are continually complaining about nonsensical_blathes will probably never see how ridiculous their rantings sound. It's time, yet again, to read the explanation of Blather on the home page. Pay particular attention to three_words there: "blather" "experiment" "nonsensical" 060317 ... dipperwell Was that directed at me? 060317 ... probably not but get off the weed. broken church. dufferin/dupont. $219.00. 060317 ... dipperwell Was *that* directed at me?! 060317 ... exiled some of us come here because we've been excluded everywhere else. right or wrong, it's hard not to take such things personal. 060317 ... dipperwell We all have pathos, here. And have been rejected and ruined. I had a particularly rough spot when I was sixteen. I was desperate for a home and sought it everywhere, including here. But the truth is, the world is not a perfect organism that gives each human a niche. Whoever you are, I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote my words. And I was genuine when I said I considered the "meaningless" blathes to be okay. As in, normal/acceptable/understandable. As though I haven't written a plethora of them? They just aren't my preference. I wasn't condemning you. But really I do think you condemn yourself, even in your feelings of self-righteousness. Or else it wouldn't matter so much. Honestly, I remember what it was like to need something to save me. 060317 ... Death of a Rose yeah...well...you all suck!!! :) 061005 ... . the wonder and the glory of blather 061006 ... Chris why is everyone so obsess with self-righteousness? Haven't the whole human race realized that we are what we call others. "Hypocrites" in the words of my good friend Jesus Christ. 061006 ... BEF BLATHER EXPERIMENT FILES: OBSERVATION #4667: The creation of Red Blather has caused a marked division amongst subjects. Note: This result was predicted by lab associate XXX XXXXXXXX, who deduced that such behavior was inevitable and that subjects would, for the most part, believe one version of Blather was better than the other. Mr. XXXXXXXX has requested the creation of a third version to see how the dynamics would change. His suggestion is being reviewed. 061007 ... So many illusions...so little time Given that people almost always develop inane preferences as such, deduction was hardly necessary. But congrats to Mr. XXXXXXXX, anyway. Was the purpose of that vinette, BEF, anything more than a crimson advertisment? 061007 ... . [vignette] 061007 what's it to you? who go blather from