|
|
Posted by Dick Gaughan on 01/03/08 18:57
In <C3A2D429.F13D%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs <nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk> wrote:
>I don't get it. Why was the original post spam?
It wasn't. It was many things, including being a
pathetically-badly disguised festering heap of marketing shite,
but it wasn't spam.
Those insisting it was spam are merely flaunting their
cluelessness. A post is *only* defined as being spam when it
breaches the Breidbart Index. Nobody has provided any evidence
that that particular bit of midge's effluence has exceeded the BI.
--
DG
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|