|
|
Posted by Andy Jacobs on 01/03/08 19:24
On 3/1/08 6:57 pm, in article iabqn3dc2s1cmik2gr4nsm4oshe96oe7q6@4ax.com,
"Dick Gaughan" <usenet@gaelweb.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.
Blimey! I haven't heard BI used in an argument about SPAM since an ENORMOUS
thread in a freeserve web authoring group many years ago involving the
legendary Tony Morgan.
Those were the days!
--
Andy Jacobs
http://www.redcatmedia.co.uk
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|