Reply to all but the last clause of the last sentence: good for you! I was going to add to my original comment that nothing else about your site felt shady or unethical, so the chances were very good that you were one of the non-shonky email marketers. I've got a couple of your other pages open in tabs now because I suspect you have some good advice for me. I'm please to have it confirmed that you considered those issues of ethics and put your money where your mouth is.
Reply to the final clause: to be employing an ad hominem argument I'd need to be bringing up something about you that's irrelevant: "I won't read an article by a guy with blond hair, because a blond guy once ate my cat" would be classic ad hominem. But I think your history as a (suspected) spammer is definitely relevant when the matter in question is your eligibility to give advice about customer relations, so I stand by it as valid, and not ad hominem. And on the flipside, your explanation of where you went with your pseudo-spamming career makes your articles more credible, don't you agree? It works both ways, which an ad hominem argument doesn't.
Reply to the final clause: to be employing an ad hominem argument I'd need to be bringing up something about you that's irrelevant: "I won't read an article by a guy with blond hair, because a blond guy once ate my cat" would be classic ad hominem. But I think your history as a (suspected) spammer is definitely relevant when the matter in question is your eligibility to give advice about customer relations, so I stand by it as valid, and not ad hominem. And on the flipside, your explanation of where you went with your pseudo-spamming career makes your articles more credible, don't you agree? It works both ways, which an ad hominem argument doesn't.