|
|
Posted by Doug Baiter on 01/04/08 21:44
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The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.
>
>In a.w.w, ads of any kind are considered SPAM. Same with some of the
>other groups he's posted to.
LMFAO! You "consider" it spam, regardless of the fact that the only
accepted definition means it isn't? Nobody gives a flying toss what
*you* consider spam. It isn't. End of.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|