|
|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 01/06/08 03:58
Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:21:20 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Gary L. Burnore 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 The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.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 So you have some meaningless, out of date measurement which doesn't say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.
>>>
>> That's funny. I've gotten quite a few hosting of accounts canceled
>> because I've reported spam.
>
> Only if it's real spam. What you're calling spam isn't. There are
> very specific rules.
>
And according to the FAQ's in a.w.w, it is spam. And this is.
>> Hosting companies DO pay attention to spam
>> in alt groups, also. And the good ones don't keep spammers around.
>
> The good ones would ignore frivolus complaints. The good ones know
> that FAQ stands for Frequently asked Questions, not an inforcable
> document and that charters mean nothing in non-moderated alt groups.
> They're called alt. for a reason.
>
Gee, it's the good ones who cancel accounts because I show them the
spam. It is ENFORCEABLE (get a spell checker). And it DOES mean something.
Sorry. Your arguments don't work. They're too far out of date.
>
>> But in this case the op is a troll well-known in a.w.w. He just morphed
>> names, and it took a little while to catch on (good catch, Karl!).
>
> SO? What does that have to do with comp.lang.php?
I didn't start it. I'm just trying to show people who Rafael
Martinez-Minuesa Martinez really is - a troll and a spammer.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|