[menu]

e-mails and other selections

by jai jackson




5-6-04

To: Jim McDermott, D, House of Representatives, Washington
Re: The Pledge of Allegiance

As a citizen concerned with the deteriorating condition of the constitutionally mandated separation between church and state, I applaud your recent action to recite the OLD Pledge of Allegiance, the one I recited when I was in grade school, before the change that attempted to insert religion into the political process. I believe that there must be a distinct division between the government and religious institutions, a distinction that the present administration is determined to muddy. I appreciate your action in the face of the kind of pressure you must feel from religious politicos among your constituency. Thank you.

4-13-04
Dept. of non-responsive responses

To: Quality Paperback Book Club
Re: Billing: Clarify Invoice

[the fixed category in a drop down menu in a CGI
mail script that came closest to the problem I had]

My account balance is incorrect. It should be zero. The book I just received that I was billed for was backordered from an introductory package of 5 books for $5, which was previously paid for in full. Can you please rectify this billing problem? Thank you.

response:

Dear Member,

Thank you for contacting us.
There is currently a balance due on your account of $5.49 for "How To Play Popular Piano In 10 Easy Lessons". Please remit payment as soon as possible. Please feel free to contact us again, if you have any additional questions or concerns.

Sincerely,
Belinda Showers

Yet another company whose single-minded intransigence and/or bureaucratic entanglement and/or air-headed employee is going to result in the loss of my future business.

8-9-03
Spamming Spammers

My rationale (justification) for replying to spam (in case anyone will question/accuse me about/of being a spammer, especially in the event that it is made illegal sometime in the future): what I do is not spam; what I do is a response to spam. I used to get so frustrated when I got spam and no matter how I approached the problem, I could not resolve it. I tried unsubscribing, only to discover that removal from one list put me on several others. The more I unsubscribed, the more spam I got. And since it didn't look like anyone was going to do anything about the problem (look how long it took for society to come up with a solution to telemarketers; and it's still somewhat up in the air as they're challenging the 'do not call' lists in court), I developed my own solution: if I must receive spam no matter what, I may as well make use of it and respond in kind. So I started to reply. It's true that most of the messages are rejected automatically and don't get through; but some of them. And because they do, the process itself has become a mechanism for defusing the frustration. I'm doing something about the problem. And since I only reply to spam, I don't feel I'm doing anything wrong. If there were no spam, I wouldn't have anything to reply to. The only people who "suffer" from my activities are those who are doing the spamming. They initiate the response by choosing to spam me. I mean, c'mon. What are we complaining about here? Me? Or the spammers? Don't come down on me for having developed a strategy to combat the very thing that you're complaining about in the first place. Attack the problem at the source. I may be the easy target, and so become the scapegoat. But, by definition, it won't solve the problem, because if I reply, the problem is still there. Outlaw spam, not me.

10-19-02
From: "Bellone, Dominic (NBC, MSNBC)"
RE: The Hardball Briefing for October 18, 2002

I get such a kick out of important people sending me e-mails, even when the subject matter is mundane. I sent a short comment to the Hardball newsletter, correcting the use of 'erratum', when it should have been 'errata' and here's the one-line response from Dominic Bellone:

Clearly I need to issue an erratum of the erratum.

10-19-02
To: codered22@xxxxxxx
Re: A comment on your writing...

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate them. I do welcome feedback, very much, but I don't expect it. Consequently, when it comes, I am always very much surprised. I wish more people would take the time, but as it is, they don't. I always feel short on feedback.

The characterization of liberals as enlightened, which implies that conservatives are not, is an unfortunate choice of word pairings on my part. I should have, maybe, avoided the conservative and liberal adjectives and just gone with a basic fundamentalism v. enlightenment. Although that is hardly better, there can be conservatives who are not fundamentalists, and they may then be 'enlightened.'

More important to me, however, is not the basic argument presented, which is questionable, but the nature of my writing in general. These opinions are 'local.' Elsewhere, I opine the opposite. This is a problem with my chosen format. It appears to be something it is not. It is certainly not political in the strictest sense of the word. I have no political agenda (that I know of). I am not a political animal, at all. In fact, I am quite self-effacing (in person, if not in writing style). I would not have others believe as I do. I relish difference of opinion. What I write is a spontaneous reaction to what I experience, a pastiche of ideas and reported events seasoned, of course, by my own past experience. Any expressed opinions may not be so much my own as merely borrowed for the convenience of the work, because I find in every idea some truth. My own opinions are kind of nebulous in this regard. I am a product of my most immediate input, always have been. I find it very difficult to form lasting beliefs and am very easily (mis)led. My writing motive is an attempt to solidify opinions, before they melt away. What I find myself doing, then, is documenting a fluid state of mind. Nothing definite, ever. This is very postmod stuff, superficial and fleeting, off the top of my head, not to be taken too seriously, a snapshot of a moving, documenting [change to perceiving] mind.

If you perceive the opinions in question to be 'vain, pretentious and over-assuming,' that is probably because I possess those traits--not consciously, but I know that people have judged me in those ways in the past. They're fundamentally wrong, from my own point of view of course, because they see only the surface appearance. They do not experience the severe low self-esteem for which these traits may be compensation. But that's an excuse. I am what I am, whether I see it or not and even if only superficially. I probably do come across as 'preaching to be' something, but I'm not too aware of what that something might be. I am pulled here and there, back and forth, by whatever 'news' or environmental condition happens to focus my attention. This may be the 'spin' you feel you have to wade through. I wade through it myself. Sometimes I think I'm liberal, sometimes conservative, sometimes 'enlightened,' sometimes obtuse. It's an affliction.

Anyway, thanks for the opportunity to further express myself. I probably do not address your objections too directly, but I appreciate your having taken the time to write. Please write back if you feel you would like to amplify your comments--or for any other reason. I welcome your considered and insightful words.

P.S. What DID you think I was "preaching to be" before that passage changed your mind? I'd really like to know that.

jai

10-17-02
[I got this interesting e-mail the other day and am wondering if this is true, or if this is one of those Internet hoaxes. It was attributed to no author and had a long history having been forwarded. Would anyone who has any further facts on these events please e-mail them to me. (I edited this letter for format, to correct a few minor grammar and punctuation errors, and to make it more readable, but in essence it's the same as I received it.)]

At a lecture the other day they were playing an old news video of Lt. Col. Oliver North testifying at the Iran-Contra hearings during the Reagan Administration (1987). There was Ollie in front of God and country getting the third degree, but what he said was stunning! He was being drilled by some senator.

"Did you not recently spend close to $60,000 for a home security system?"

Ollie replied, "Yes, I did, Sir."

The senator continued, trying to get a laugh out of the audience.

"Isn't that just a little excessive?"

"No, sir."

"No? And why not?"

"Because the lives of my family and I were threatened, sir."

"Threatened? By whom?"

"By a terrorist, sir."

"Terrorist? What terrorist could possibly scare you that much?"

"His name is Osama bin Laden, sir."

At this point the senator tried to repeat the name, but couldn't pronounce it, which most people back then probably couldn't. A couple of people laughed at the attempt. Then the senator continued. Why are you so afraid of this man?"

"Because, sir, he is the most evil person alive that I know of."

"And what do you recommend we do about him?"

"Well, sir, if it was up to me, I would recommend that an assassin team be formed to eliminate him and his men from the face of the earth." The senator disagreed with this approach, and that was all that was shown of the clip. That senator was Al Gore.

------------------------------

Terrorist pilot Mohammad Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called "political prisoners". However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands. The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, insisted that all prisoners be released. Thus, Mohammad Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in the US from all later reports.



3-22-02
To Yahoo Garageband newsletter
[never sent because, before I got around to sending it, they fixed the list by changing a repetitive posting option (calendar post) making this message irrelevant.]


Complaining About Spam.

Let's be literal. Spam is e-mail you didn't ask for. You subscribed to this newsletter. Mine it for the music links and stop complaining. (I'm more irritated by the complaints than by the hype.) I've found a lot of great sites by wading through this crap. Be grateful that the Net is still free. If you feel the need to vent, rant at the corporations that are trying to make it a fee-based system. Or . . . just smile and listen to the music. [If you really want to read some caustic vindictive, visit
https://jaijack.tripod.com/jai/A__frame.html.
(It's not a music site. It's psycho-literary--well, sort of.)]

8-30-01
from faroff@xxxxx


I think you're wrong about Real Player. They've always been persistent, pernicious, pecuniary jerks.


7-21-01
The text of my autoresponder message that I no longer use:


You have chosen to send me an e-mail. Thank you.

If your e-mail is a personal one or is in reference to a requested business-oriented subject, I will respond to it as soon as possible, if a response is appropriate.

If your e-mail is spam or business-oriented material that I did not specifically request, it will be arbitrarily deleted without comment and without reading any more of it than is absolutely necessary to determine the unsolicited content.

In any case, please take the time to read the following regular release I have prepared. This is an excerpt from a recent posting to my website. You may read the rest of this excerpt and much more by clicking on the link below. Thank you for your interest in my work.


6-18-01
An old signature block I used to use to try to provoke the feds into turning their attention toward me, hoping to gain a little bit of notoriety that I could parlay into Website traffic:


Are you reading my e-mail prior to its arrival at its final destination?
If you are, you're an asshole. (If you are the intended recipient of this e-mail, this message is not for you.)

[addendum (4-21-02): it seems like Carnivore's heyday is back, and here to stay. Wired News reports that the FBI is up to its old tricks, filtering enormous volumes of e-mail of innocent people, trying to find "Terrorist" information--or so they say. They have a warrant. Big Deal. We all know how easy it is to get them these days. And anyway, once they begin filtering, what's to stop them from reading whatever they want? Who'll know?]


6-7-01
e-mail to I-DESIGN, an e-mail discussion list
(un-posted)


In issue # 100, Subject: accessibility_issues, TBC writes:

"Then there are the large number of Internet-using baby boomers (people over 65 are the faster growing group of new Internet users)"

This statement at least implies, if it is not outright intended to state, that baby-boomers are over 65. The oldest baby-boomers were born in 1945, which makes them at most 56. A small and admittedly picky point, but I am 55 and have been suffering from an aging issue. (I don't like getting old.) Please be as sensitive to the maturationally-handicapped as you seem to be to all of the other disability groups. We must be very careful not only in the designs we create, but also in the words we choose. Language is rife with loaded phrases, and even simple erroneous facts can alienate certain users. Precision in all areas of website design is the rule, and language is still one of the biggest areas. Websites with bad facts or grammar can alienate even "normal" users, not to mention those weirdo sticklers like me (another accessibility handicap: when I see language errors, my attention is displaced, as if I suffer from ADD) who dwell on every misspelling, punctuation oddity, or misplaced phrase. Seriously though, we must give at least as much attention to the language we choose as to the designs that we create. I see so many otherwise profressionally designed websites that suffer from less than well-thought-out language choices. Think about it.


comments to myself:
[Some people are so prissy. They have no tolerance for a playful, teasing, or humorous attitude and if they are in some position of power or authority, they can (often surreptitiously) make your life miserable as they act to deny you what otherwise you might easily expect to get--all because their psychology demands that they try to make others as miserable as they are inside. (They most often hide this misery, from themselves as well as from others, beneath a veneer of respectability, thus accounting for their prissiness.)]

[motivating source: a former moderator of I-Design, because she would not publish my responses to posts.]

[I have no idea if these comments are justified or not. Probably, they are not. I was probably in a paraniod mood when I wrote them. But they feel right. But maybe only about my own self, projected.] (6-17-01)


4-10-01
another spam reply I used for a short while a while back


I have the power. Remove me from your mailing list, you spamming scum-suckers, or you will begin to have nightmares that cyber-terrorists are hacking your brain, disturbing its contents, introducing devastating viruses, and systematically taking over control of your conscious and involuntary actions. Take me seriously. There are "schizophrenic" patients in institutions who did not.

2-10-01
a spam reply I used to use


While I graciously welcome comments, criticism, inquires, and even diatribe of a professional or person nature (being truly interested in personal opinion in particular and human nature in general), and while I tolerate (with some reserve) personal (i.e., individually crafted for me to read) attempts to sell me something (I'll know if these attempts are truly personalized as opposed to being the results of bots. I'm not stupid), I despise spam and will do everything I am capable of to negate it. STOP SPAMMING ME IMMEDIATELY, OR I WILL RETALIATE. THIS IS A FAIR WARNING.

2-10-01
an e-mail to the iChannel


Probably, you are not the right organization to submit this complaint to, but since I don't know exactly who is, I send it to you:

I love to watch The International Channel because it affords an opportunity to become familiar with other cultures in a way that is easier and more casual than, for example, studying them more formally, and Americans, being somewhat more egocentrically isolated as a result of their "success" as a society, need more than most world citizens to be apprised of the other cultures of the world.

But when I watch the iChannel, I become lost (of course) when English is not spoken. (I am a true American, one who speaks no other language, and although I'd like to be multilingual, I find it a difficult study.) It would be convenient to have a service similar to Closed Captioning that could be tapped into to get translations.

But that is not my complaint. My complaint is that when programs (mostly movies) are sub-titled, often they are done so poorly that they are "unwatchable." The lettering sometimes falls below the bottom of the screen (I know it's a problem of incompatibility between the TV screen and the film format), but most disturbing is that the lettering, most often white, is often lost against white backgrounds, so that much of the translation is unreadable. Is there anything that can be done about this to accommodate viewers who do not speak the language? I've seen films where they surround white lettering with a black background to allow it to stand out against the film background. This seems like a good solution.

I know that the people who supply the films to you probably do most of the translations. Maybe you can pass this complaint on to them. And think about the idea of Closed-Captioning. It would be a valuable service.

Thank you for your time, and for the excellent programming you provide.

10-2-00

To: e-corpse magazine
Re: my submission

Hey guys, what's up?

I see the new issue of Corpse is out, which leaves me wondering. Being a fundamentally insecure person (which is not necessarily a negative trait; it provides the motivation for my work), when a lot of time passes without my having heard from people, I always have to think: Did they change their minds about me? Am I no longer one of their favored acquaintances? Have they seen through the clever facade I present into the depths of my warped soul to the illness I try to pass off as art? Are they onto me? Do they no longer want to associate with me? Or, in your case, have they lost or misplaced my manuscript? Did a fire or virus sweep through their computer room wiping out all past records, my submission along with them? Did they go out of business or simply change their minds about the worth of my work?

A brief word, please, to assuage my eternally desperate doubting nature. Just say, "Everything is still okay." I am an expert at waiting. I have been waiting all my life. But that doesn't mean I have to like it. Everyone needs an externally-applied shot of confidence, or reality, every once in a while. Let me know the truth. I can take it.



[menu] [top]