0

...from a Dhammic view (one that leads to liberation).

To quote an example:

I removed my forum as it was just a magnet for spammers, and no one was making use of it. I don’t find it productive to visit Buddhist forums any longer. If you want to learn about Buddhism, visit a teacher and talk to them face to face. If you’re fairly new to Buddhism, it might help to read the FAQS and FIBS below before delving deeper into the teachings on this website and elsewhere.

Then, next a "sex-issue" in another forum.

Since modern Buddhists have really strange problems with being given and defend it with "spam":

What's the underlying problem with giving or the underlying problem in being given with a feeling of "being harmful given"? Fear of having no or not wished coupling? Ie. get even free from it?

Another "try to avoid, deny" debts issue? Either to avoid it or to think "I can take"?

(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, intercourse which bind but for liberation sake only)

  • In a comment, you tried to write, "Johann: Is it possible that Nyom Chris removes his meta-Budddhism issue "spam stuff" and tries to simply stay on topic? Surely wished when he would answer his own questions, reflections and reasoning, in the meta section. What does Nyom Chris think? Possible, or strongly believing a certain "movie" is present for all? He can, my person knows him also relaxed." – ChrisW Apr 4 at 10:54
  • I understood the question (see the title) as asking about "when is something called 'spam' as opposed to 'giving' on an internet site"? I think we're ideally supposed to answer based on references (to scripture) or based on personal experience -- and this site is the only site I have much experience with (hence my answer being about this site). – ChrisW Apr 4 at 10:59
  • If nobody else answer I might move this to the meta-site later; or if someone else posts a more an-topic answer I might might delete my answer which is, as you say, a meta-topic. – ChrisW Apr 4 at 11:02
1

What and where is the different between 'spam' and 'giving'?

The narrow (original, antique) definition of "spam" is "unsolicited commercial email" -- for example if I send you an email without your asking me to, and my email is to say to you, "Buy my stuff!"

A relaxed (colloquial) definition is:

  • Not necessarily email -- it may be posting on a site instead
  • Not necessarily "commercial" -- it may be pushing a view instead

I think the chief characteristic of spam is that it's unsolicited -- i.e. no-one asked for it.

So, loosely speaking, "spam" is "unsolicited electronic communication".


Questions

On this site people are invited to post questions about Buddhism -- so questions which are on-topic (i.e. about Buddhism), and which meet the Moderation policies for Questions, are not "unsolicited" (instead, they're invited) and therefore not "spam".

That policy includes this:

  1. "Seeded questions": the standard Stack Exchange Help says,

    You should only ask practical, answerable questions based on actual problems that you face. Chatty, open-ended questions diminish the usefulness of our site and push other questions off the front page.

    Also this topic includes the following popular answers:

    I find seeded questions irksome

    And:

    I do not mind beginners asking beginner questions. I do not mind experienced people asking beginner questions because they have a gap in their training or education.

    But, questions which may be intended to teach other people a lesson are less popular. If a question is to benefit you then please ask it; but not if you ask it only to teach other people.

    This is similar to other policies, about answering questions and minimizing controversy:

That policy is meant to avoid people asking questions in order to push views. So questions like ...

  • Do you want to buy my stuff?
  • Why don't you buy my stuff?

... aren't welcome. Or, to do with views ...

  • Why is school Y so wrong, compared with school X which is right?
  • What harm will come to you if you don't agree with my view?

... are considered as uninvited, unwelcome -- and maybe like spam because they're intended to push a view, not to ask a question.


Answers

Similarly, answers to questions are not considered spam -- they're not unsolicited because the question invites answers.

Answers should answer the question though (and answer which says, "that's the wrong question" might be not-an-answer).

And (as mentioned above) you generally shouldn't be answering your own questions.


So that's the policy on his site.

Generally, if you want to try to "give" you can do that by trying to answer questions which other people ask. That makes the communication cooperative.

Perhaps it's slightly analogous to "don't take what's not given" -- i.e. "don't give what's not asked for".

Yes that narrows the scope/usefulness of this site -- perhaps there are good things you can't say because nobody is asking.

But this is intended as a "question and answer" site, not a "forum" -- maybe its being strict about the format and content helps to make it useful, tolerable, productive, used.

What's the underlying problem with giving or the underlying problem in being given with a feeling of "being harmful given"? Fear of having no or not wished coupling?

I think you're asking, "Why do people dislike what they call 'spam'? If something is given, why call it 'spam' and dislike it, what's the problem with it, what's the harm?"

Perhaps you'e also asking, "Is it something to do with sex, i.e. coupling? Or with wanting to take rather than being given, to avoid feeling indebted?"

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .