Arthur Black's Jan. 22 editorial "Paranoid? Who's paranoid?" claims that the paranoid community hasn't responded to the MIT paper impugning the effectiveness of Deflector Beanie technology. This is false. The MIT paper was debunked last November, as can be read here on my website.

In short, the MIT experiment was unsuitable for the phenomenon in question and had procedural irregularities that would have disqualified it from a reputable peer-reviewed journal.

As the published author of one of the seminal works on personal mind-control protection using aluminum foil, I find it odd that I was not contacted by Mr. Black for a quote. Regardless, simple research on his part would have revealed the response to the MIT paper (it's the very first hit on Google for "'deflector beanie' MIT").

That Mr. Black either chose not to do any research or to ignore the existence of a response brings into question his competency as a journalist. I would expect such behavior from a writer for the Chilliwack Times, but I am disheartened to see it in someone from the Chilliwack Progress. I hope this is not indicative of a lowering of journalistic standards in our great Republic of Cascadia.

Regards,
Lyle Zapato

In response to my response to some hat-related spam, our friends at Star Position dropped us a letter:

One of my people emailed you in error. You've seen fit to put her phone number on it. In case it has not dawned on you, you are actually by doing this in violation of certain Penal Codes for the State of California -> look up 'cyberterrorism' 'cyberstalking' specifically California Penal Code 646.9 'actions which would be designed to put an individual in fear for their safety'

I'm going to look at your site again in 24 hours. You are going to be a good chap and remove any phone numbers from any postings relating to my company, Star Position. And before you blow this off, or do something truly even more stupid than what you have done, I suggest you do a google search for California Penal Code 646.9 and related topics. We are based in California.

Best Regards,

Robert Sexton
Director of Business Development, Star Position US and Star Position UK

Toll Free: [REDACTED!], extension [REDACTED!]
International: [REDACTED!]

Websites:
Star Position US: WWW.[REDACTED!].COM
Star Position UK: WWW.[REDACTED!].CO.UK

Proud member of the Better Business Bureau

Apparently, revealing telephone numbers for businesses, even ones that are routinely spammed to public listserves and fora (see here, here, here, here, and here), constitutes "cyberterrorism" in California, at least in Rob's view.

(Here's the actual text of the 646.9 code. I'll leave it up to the reader to figure how repeating a publicly available business number once constitutes two or more acts of harassement against a specific person with a credible threat to his or her safety. Also note that "terrorism", cyber or otherwise, appears nowhere in the text. But hey, it sounds cool.)

Anyway, to ease any fears, rational or otherwise, that Rob or his people might have for their safety by having their business numbers in one additional place on the Net that I may have unintentionally caused, I have redacted the numbers from this and the previous email. I also redacted the web addresses above, since I'm just that good of a chap.

On a side note, Rob's people seem to have some issues with sending emails in error. Perhaps he will be a good chap and look into fixing that.

UPDATE 2007-09-03: (I just noticed I forgot to link to the post that prompted the above exchange, so I updated the first sentence accordingly.)

My attention was drawn back here thanks to an email from Amy Alkon at the Advice Goddess Blog, who has had a run in with Rob. She was fed up with getting spam from him and his refusal to remove her from his spam lists after repeated requests, so she contacted one of the clients he spams for. That got his attention, and he promptly threatened to sue her for "tortuous interference with a business". Responding to Alkon's complaint on the Better Business Bureau site, he then told some fibs (according to Alkon) and summarized his response as "Ms. Alkon needs to calm down". Funny, coming from a guy who accuses random bloggers of "cyberterrorism".

Eddie writes:

EVERYTHING IS A LIE ON THIS WEB SITE YOU CAN GET TROUBLE YOU BETTER DELETE THE WEB SITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Since Eddie saved up all his punctuation credits for the end of the message, it's a bit difficult to decipher his meaning. Let me clear it up for you:

Everything is a lie! On this web site, you can get trouble. You better delete the web site!

There. Much easier to read.

Now, while I don't agree with Eddie's randomly-blurted epistemological stance -- everything can't be a lie since everything would necessarily include the proposition "Everything is a lie", thus creating a paradox -- he is correct about my site: You can get trouble here.

Learning how to foil mind-control, how to support the Cascadian independence movement, and the TRUTH about both Black Helicopters and Belgium will all bring you trouble from those who want to keep you enslaved and ignorant.

Eddie seems to think that you should be protected from this trouble for your own good. He would rather have those troublemakers who put up websites like this delete them than risk anyone being troubled. This troubles him, judging by his tone.

Although his concern is understandable, I feel he is absolutely wrong. People need to be troubled when to be troubled means to avoid a greater, more troubling trouble, no matter how troublesome the initial trouble may seem. To remain untroubled in these troublous times is to live a lie.

Would he rather people dumpster-dive for aluminum foil or be turned into mind-controlled zombies of the NWO? Would he rather Cascadians be hassled by the Man at California "Fruit Inspection Stations" because of their pro-Cascadia bumper stickers or see all of Cascadia sold into a bondage of crisscrossing monorail lines? Would he rather people make themselves a target for pestering by Belgians or make themselves into Belgians. I think the choice of troubles is obvious.

So, Eddie, I will not delete the website. While it may bring trouble to those who heed it, ultimately it will trouble the forces of evil the most.

Yesterday, I received the following email (details excised, since I don't want to unleash a mob of torch-wielding cybervigilantes on the parties involved):

Lyle, I am writing to you from [company name] regarding a link that you have to us from your site Zapatopi.net. Listed as a [name of product they sell] site on your links page. Realizing that this link does not help either one of us we are asking that you please remove [company URL] from your site.

(This was from someone who doesn't actually work at the company in question, but for some agency hired to promote them or handle their Internet presence or something of that nature.)

My response, again excised of details, was:

I'm sorry, and I don't want to be an argumentative jerk, but that request is just silly and pointless.

A link is a reference to a site and does not imply any sort of relationship. I even put a disclaimer to that effect at the bottom of the page, even though it's common knowledge, since someone else got all worked up over a link there before (it was this guy: http://www.stopabductions.com/ who wraps his head in Velostat to keep the aliens from abducting him; wonderful company you're keeping, huh?)

Asking me to not link to your company is equivalent to asking me to not talk or write about it. If I were writing an article for a print publication about [making things with product] and I added "You can buy [product] from [company name and business address]", would you really think it sensible to contact the publisher and request that the article be altered in future editions so as not to mention you? Doesn't that sound just a bit... paranoid?

Furthermore, considering the reference I am making is to simply point people toward a source for [product], without commenting on [company] itself, I have a hard time seeing why this would not be of help to you. While it's very probable that no one has bought any [product] from you as a result of being directed to your site from mine (it is after all one link buried among many), I can't imagine who would be dissuaded from buying any because I linked to it. And even if I were to try and imagine such a hypothetical weirdo, the former is an immensely more likely scenario than the later and I'm only left to conclude that on average the link would be more help than harm.

All that being said, I'm not wedded to your company, since I chose it merely because it came up on a Google search for "[product]" at the time, and would be willing to substitute the link to another source of [product]. As it says on your website "[company is one of only three that make product in the US]" If you will provide me the name and URL of your two competitors, I'll go ahead and link to them instead and advise all AFDB users to shop there and avoid [company] and its products (without linking to you, of course).

Regards,
Lyle Zapato
(I request that you don't utter my name aloud.)

To which was replied:

Thanks for your response, and no, of course you're not an "argumentative jerk" We recently learned though, and would share this info with you, that the request is not "just silly and pointless." It's actually costly. It has become a new and unexpected issue for us. I'll explain. International industry standards for some manufacturing companies DEMAND that companies respond to any and all messages, even if they are not relevant to their busimess [Freudian slip? Just kidding.] AND DEMAND they do it with a certain set of protocols (we'd call them a "pain"). This activity, I've been told takes a lot of time and costs companies money; if it is relevant and a possible prospect, it's certianly worth it. Otherwise...well, you know...

Curiously enough, while we spend a good deal of time on search engine optimization so that others can find us. For some, we even pay to have listings, and we try to encourage cross alliances and listings of websites, for some clients it backfires. Honestly, very few extraneous visitors come to their site because of yours. This has just become a bit of an issue...one they'd like to avoid.

Of course, when someone does want [list of products company offers], we welcome the query! That's all.

We did enjoy our visit you your site. Good Luck with it. [name withheld]

So there you have it... PEOPLE OF THE INTERNET: Remove all links to companies that have not had their marketing agents enter into cross alliances with you! You are costing businesses untold billions of dollars in expenses for replying to very few visitors that they are DEMANDED to respond to. Or something.

(P.S. I have changed the link to a Chinese supplier of [product], who have a better website anyway, albeit in Chinese. Presumably I won't be able to read the emails from their marketing agents, so I'll never know if they want me to remove their link. Out of sight, out of mind.)