When I tried to post part of the previous postings as a comment on Stephen’s Web, I was told:
“Because it has submitted spam, this client has been banned from all interactive features of this website. Email the administrator if you believe this to be in error”
Now I really dislike spam, so being accused of submitting it quite put me off.
I believe that this happened because I had first attempted to preview a version of the comment which included a url for my own full posting. Although that may not have been wise – and may even have been contrary to advice on Stephen’s website (I haven’t checked but I can well imagine a ‘no urls’ rule), I was a bit upset at the accusatory language.
When I brought this to Stephen’s attention he kindly offered to insert the comment manually, and in any case I have no quarrel with his right to restrict comments on whatever grounds he sees fit, but perhaps there
I do understand the problem with spammers, having had to shut down the comments feature of the LFA website, and so my ‘complaint’ was more with the wording of the error message, ‘because it has submitted spam’, than with the fact of being blocked.
Perhaps we all need to keep in mind when we vent our frustration with spammers that not everything that smells like spam really is spam and so, when rejecting a smelly offering we should try to avoid accusing the purveyor of having poisonous intentions.