I don't know about your situation, but it seems (and I do not think that I am imagining this without sensible basis), that both nefarious operatives at and in Facebook, along with similarly-nefarious operatives at and in G-Mail (and those within Excite -- prone to let bluetie.com capriciously block my outgoing e-mails of my various Excite e-mail accounts) are on a demonic crusade to capriciously stifle and block the religious freedom of speech of hapless victims - all in the name of preventing "spam" (the questionable definition of which is concocted by who they over-broadly and vaguely miscall: the [so-called] "internet community")....which Facebook, g-mail, and/or bluetie.com e-mail manipulators victim-subscribers dangerously and perhaps ill-advisedly use to apprehensively convey private and personal speech to those of the public, or even specific individuals within the general public, who might or might not like such private and personal speech from those who convey it to them.

Actually, the true and best definition of "spam" is: whatever comes at someone repeatedly which they did not ask for, which they do not like, which is not good for them (as God defines "good for them"), and which they have requested the source of spam to stop conveying what is not good for them to them, and yet the source has not stopped conveying it to them.

Ecclesiastes 9:1 But all this I laid to heart, examining it all, how the righteous and the wise and their deeds are in the hand of God; whether it is love or hate man does not know. Everything before them is vanity.

It is understandable that the proverbial "many on the broad and easy road to destruction" of the general public would not and do not want to initially see, and especially repeatedly view, fundamentalist/orthodox Christian and Biblical moral precepts and directives contrary to their apostate or hedonistic-pagan lifestyles.

Where there is a problem is that such heretically-wayward-and-rebellious deviates complain to similar-immentality deviant-infidel operatives at Facebook, g-mail, and/or bluetie.com in the communications-service business, which communication operatives then take it upon themselves to be judge, jury, and executioner against constitutionally-protected free-speech Scripturally-based content which they mis-consider something that needs to be censored and blocked, as if true-and-genuine Christian dogma was a diabolical antisocial detriment against the well-being of global society and all humankind thereof.

This blockage occurs in various forms - one of which is a demand from aforementioned deviant communication-service operatives for the customer or client to provide a personal phone number for code-acquisition to access and enter Facebook, G-Mail or whatever.

Such demand and requirement for disclosing personal phone numbers is a breach against the security of customers or clients, being that phone numbers made public can easily, quickly, and anonymously be misused (despite disclaimers to the contrary) to impose hard-to-eradicate sporadic or incessant harassment from whoevers, whenever such terrorists choose to impose it.

Interesting it is that Facebook nor g-mail nor bluetie.com staff and management do not provide phone numbers of themselves nor other identification for targeting against themselves! Such hypocrisy exists, and is despicable.

A logical alternative would be for Facebook, g-mail, and/or bluetie.com to e-mail a request to the customer's or client's alternative e-mail address with a hotlink to clear up any confusion or suspicion or concern which staff and management of Facebook, g-mail, and/or bluetie.com might have pertaining to whatever customer or client account is involved or in question.

Not only that, but the ideal situation is for recipients of what they ascertain or mis-ascertain "objectionable" e-mailed content or messages should - themselves - directly notify the sender(s) of such content or messages that they do not want to receive any more info from them. That would be the courteous, polite, sensible, and courageous thing to do - rather than complain to message conveyors Facebook, g-mail, and/or bluetie.com.

Another option Facebook, g-mail, and/or bluetie.com could forthrightly provide is for disgruntled e-mailed message recipients to - themselves - establish blocks against any particular e-mail sender(s) which then automatically deletes any incoming e-mailed messages from such troublesome-to-them sources posted to and on their accounts - so the recipient never even sees such at all (and has the same effect as if such incoming messages were never read at all but deleted by the recipient themself on the spot without opening them). What the sender of such message or content sees on their end is simply that the e-mail sent to the recipient was permanently rejected, so the sender can then, logically, delete that particular e-mail address off his or her e-mail listing.

That option is particularly useful in cases where although the bothered recipients directly e-mail back their cease-and-desist request to the sources of disturbance, the source continues to harassive e-mail them unabated.

Why should I be damned for simply saying "Hello" to some stranger and quote a nice Bible verse to them while I'm at it?

It's akin to asking a store clerk where some particular item is in the store, then being escorted out by a security guard or police for asking without first getting their permission to ask, and fined on top of it, then sent to court and imprisoned to boot.

Should I be whipped and scourged for just asking someone the time of day?

One e-mail service stated that: "it is spam to e-mail anyone anything unless they first e-mail you anything like asking you to e-mail them back anything."

Really?

But isn't it then also "spam" for them to first e-mail me asking me anything like to first e-mail them anything without them first e-mailing me anything like to ask me if they can first e-mail me anything?

Is it "spam" for my wife to e-mail me anything without first asking me if she can e-mail me anything? Every time? For how long before she has to re-ask for me to e-mail her anything, or me to re-ask her to re-ask me to e-mail her? And isn't it spam for me to e-mail God anything with Him first asking me if He can e-mail me anything, and - conversely - isn't is "spam" for God to e-mail me anything without me first asking Him to e-mail me anything, such as a request for Him to first e-mail me anything so I can ask Him to e-mail me back anything?

Consider how different the situation is with United State Postal Service mail, and with one's local phone company (be it Comcast, Century Link....even cellphone-service providers like T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint, and others).

None of those censor whatever their users utter or write via their communication mechanisms. Not so with Facebook, g-mail, and/or bluetie.com who intolerantly monitor and judge what is acceptable speech to them in contrast to what is not acceptable speech to them. And what is not acceptable to them (which they will not admit to nor elaborate on specific details) they slander or libel as being "spam."

True, if a phone-company customer or client is receiving phone calls (whether land-line or cellphone) which the customer or client, in their opinion, considers grossly inappropriate, threatening, or harassive, the customer or client - as a result of complaining to the phone company - might convince the phone company to block calls only from the undesirable source to the particular customer or client...but not block all calls to others at large from the specific source of alleged threat or purported harassment in the opinion of a particular perhaps-besieged customer or client.

Similarly is the case with U.S. Parcel-Post mail. If a particular recipient of U.S. mail justly or injustly feels harassed by some mail sender (in their personal opinion), postal sorting-and-delivery personnel can made sure that allegedly-harassive mail from a purportedly-harassive source is not conveyed to the disturbed mail recipient. However, all (especially only-one-time, or continual) mail sent by the supposedly-harassive source is not snooped into nor censored . . . unless the Government has a reasonable probable-cause compelling interest to so snoop and censor.

What is intolerable is for deviant Facebook, g-mail, and/or bluetie.com employees, or whoever is involved with them in an influential or administrative position, to fearfully or apprehensively object to discomforting orthodox and fundamentalist-Christian communication innocently and non-maliciously e-mailed to the general public -- especially to first-time viewers of such communication (and who knows how they are going to respond?). Christ's command to "go into the world and make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you" is not to be "legally" nor legitimately restricted by satanic censors presuming that they have a God-given human or civil right to squelch and thwart constitutionally-protected free speech particularly pertaining to that aforementioned Prime Directive which the Lord Jesus gave to His obedient-servant missionaries.

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong to the LORD our God; but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Proverbs 25:9 Argue your case with your neighbor himself, and do not disclose another's secret.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Matthew 10:27 What I tell you in the dark, utter in the light; and what you hear whispered, proclaim upon the housetops.

Matthew 24:36 "But of That Day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only."

Luke 12:3 Therefore whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.

John 18:20 Jesus answered him, "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly."

Acts 26:26 For the king knows about these things, and to him I speak freely; for I am persuaded that none of these things has escaped his notice, for this was not done covertly in secret.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all godlessness and wickedness of humans who by their wickedness suppress the truth.

First Timothy 4:12 Let no one despise your youth, but set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.

Titus 3:8 The saying is sure. I desire you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to apply themselves to good works [not "faith alone"]; these are excellent and profitable to humans.

First John 4:6 We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

Revelation 2:17 [paraphrase] He/She who has an ear, let him [or her] hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him/her who conquers I will give some of the Hidden Manna, and I will give him [or her] a White Stone, with a new name [access code?] written on the Stone which no one knows [nor can know?] except him/her who receives it [and even he/she would not be able to describe it to others even under the equivalent of waterboarding].