It’s not a culture of bad mouthing people for the sake of it. Clearly she’s spamming scum sending 100% unsolicited emails. Most people don’t mind so much if they receive marketing emails from a party they’ve provided their details directly to, anything less though is like the kid who won’t stop putting a dog’s business in your letter box.

I agree completely that UK atheists do not decide whether god exists but that wasn’t the purpose of the poll nor implied in the result – indeed this article is commenting on the bias inherent to the poll itself. You’re also quite correct to point out that majority views aren’t necessarily correct. For example, the majority view used to be that Sun orbited the Earth until dear old Copernicus came along. Hooray for the scientific method!

I got suckered into believing that windows ftp client supports passive mode just because it responds to “literal pasv” as you mentioned in your article.

Clearly the test is designed to see whether you’ve memorised the accompanying text book (which I assume is a seperate purchase). From that perspective it may be a good test, but clearly you can answer all these questions and still know next to nothing about your rights and responsibilities as a citizen. From that standpoint it’s an epic fail.

The test ought to be geared towards things you might need to know on a daily basis.
Things like: What’s the number for the emergency services, what services can you ask for, what should you NOT call for. Similarly, rather than asking in what year a particular right was granted, ask whether you understand what that right means in practice.

I’ve posted this on Facebook. So far the highest score anyone has posted is 17 (still a fail).

It is absolutely an act of ignorant and inconsiderate selfishness to place the burden of managing unsolicited nuisance marketing on individuals who are involuntarily targeted. It is wrong to expect the recipients to refine an unsolicited spammers mailing list by requesting to be removed! Furthermore, the vast majority of spam mails contain “remove me” links which serve no other purpose than to verify the email address as a spam target. Perhaps you also think we should take even more time to research each spammer to judge whether they would be likely to honour our request to shut the hell up?

Legitimately frustrated people are going to complain – and when someone makes the ironic faux pas of claiming to be an e-marketing expert via a spam shot, frankly they deserve to be bad-mouthed…and an effective complaint vector would be online opinion (the “internet” or www is not just for parochial marketing purposes, my dear).

Finally, you would claim she was excellent as she’s an associate of yours – you both have “@thetrainingpod” email addresses and appear linked together in your efforts as revealed in a trivial google search. Your disingenuously worded opening sentence makes the subtle but, I suspect, deliberate inference that you were a non-biased attendee. Poor form, sir, very poor form indeed.