|
|
Posted by Doug Baiter on 01/05/08 10:14
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:26:11 -0500, Gary L. Burnore
<gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:47:33 GMT, Doug Baiter <doug-baiter@no.where>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>><jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>> 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 The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>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So you have some meaningless, out of date measurement which doesn't say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.
My bad - didn't look first at the group list. While perfectly
acceptable in AWW, in a comp group you're right in that its off
charter which *is* enforcable. Perhaps the zealots in AWW should
attempt to have it reclassified into a group that has an official
charter, but in the meantime nobody cares :o). Nevertheless, please
accept my apologies for the mistake.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|