|
|
Posted by Dick Gaughan on 01/04/08 01:15
In <XrqdnW_lGbgurODanZ2dnUVZ_u_inZ2d@comcast.com> on Thu, 03 Jan
2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
wrote:
>Dick Gaughan 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.
>>
>
>The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.
When was that decided? I must have missed that debate.
>In a.w.w, ads of any kind are considered SPAM.
What aww might or might not consider is about as relevant outside
aww as a spider's fart. I'm not reading this thread in aww.
The BI was adopted as a way of avoiding would-be Usenet vigilantes
deciding to classify posts as spam on the basis that they disliked
the contents. This discussion shows that the wisdom of that
concern still has relevance.
Until someone else comes up with a better content-blind objective
definition of spam, the BI is still the benchmark.
--
DG
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|