RE: Peter Schiff vs Erik Voorhees

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Peter Schiff vs Erik Voorhees

in bitcoin •  7 years ago  (edited)

You're changing the goal posts. Above you were saying the definition of spam is based on it being repeated action. Now you're trying to pivot back to whether his post was relevant and on topic.

I don't really regard a random Bitcoin gif as relevant to my post, but we can agree to disagree on that part, and have already beat that horse. What I'm saying here is that, no, it doesn't seem like the definition of spam has to be based on repetition as you claimed it did.

Kind of feel like you're wasting my time now. mute

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

The definition you chose was two-fold.
The part in bold and the part in italics.

"irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the Internet to a large number of recipients.

The large number of recipients is the repetition. It means the same message goes out repeatedly, just to different users, people, or addresses.

It is part of what qualifies spam as spam. It is how spam filters are able to catch spam, by scanning mail for similarity.

Yeah, I don't have time for this any longer either. It's a simple word, with a simple definition that is not at all hard to comprehend.