|
|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 01/05/08 13:57
RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 5, 3:21 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:47:33 GMT, Doug Baiter <doug-bai...@no.where>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>> <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>> In <XrqdnW_lGbgurODanZ2dnUVZ_u_in...@comcast.com> on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>> In <C3A2D429.F13D%nos...@redcatgroup.co.uk> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs <nos...@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 The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.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.
>>>>> It's been dismissed as virtually meaningless for quite a while, now.
>>>>> SPAM has changed, but the index hasn't.
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> Fine. I am reading this in a.w.w., and it is spam here.
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> So you have some meaningless, out of date measurement which doesn't say
>>>>> something is spam or not, but only classifies the severity of the SPAM.
>>>>> Right. Try again.
>>>>>> Until someone else comes up with a better content-blind objective
>>>>>> definition of spam, the BI is still the benchmark.
>>>>> There is. The charter and/or FAQs for the newsgroup. And the FAQs for
>>>>> a.w.w., which were agreed to by the majority of the regulars here,
>>>>> classify this as spam.
>>>> LIA[SLAP]
>>> FAQs aren't charters and are not enforceable. Charters in unmoderated
>>> alt gorups are also uninforceable. Off charter in comp groups, on the
>>> other hand, is something that can get your news provider's attention.
>> That's funny. I've gotten quite a few hosting of accounts canceled
>> because I've reported spam. Hosting companies DO pay attention to spam
>> in alt groups, also. And the good ones don't keep spammers around.
>
> I have already forced you to close one of your SCAM websites:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thread/thread/f060789f62bf5263
>
> Do you want me to go on with the rest?
>
Sorry, the site is still up and the business is going fine.
But you may not be for long. Maybe a free plane ride to the U.S. will
get you to change your mind.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|