|
|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 01/06/08 14:29
RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 6, 5:50 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:58:48 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>> <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:21:20 -0500, 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 The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.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 So you have some meaningless, out of date measurement which doesn't say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.
>>>>> 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.
>>> A FAQ is only a list of frequently asked questions, Jerry. It is no
>>> way enforceable and can't change the meaning of the word. >> They're
>>> called alt. for a reason.
>> Sorry, you 're about 10 years behind the curve.
>>
>>>> Gee, it's the good ones who cancel accounts because I show them the
>>>> spam.
>>> Nope. Only a fool would believe what you're calling spam is actually
>>> spam.
>> Only a fool would believe unsolicited ads where they are not wanted is
>> not SPAM.
>>
>> However, it seems you've just called a lot of respected hosting
>> companies fools.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> It is ENFORCEABLE (get a spell checker).
>>> More proof of how you really are? Good! You're showing every newbie
>>> in comp.lang.php that you're an idiot. Hope that's what you wanted.
>>> It's what you're getting.
>> Nope. Just that YOU are. Can't even afford a spell checker.
>>
>>>> And it DOES mean something.
>>> Nothing at all.
>>>> Sorry.
>>> Liar.
>> You're the one calling someone a LIAR! ROFLMAO!
>>
>>>> Your arguments don't work.
>>> It's not an argument, it's a fact.
>> Show me where it is a FACT. Otherwise, it is just YOUR OPINION. And
>> YOUR ARGUMENT.
>>
>>>> They're too far out of date.
>>> Good thing is, you don't get to decide.
>> Neither do you.
>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>> So you're so controlled you simply MUST post to comp.lang.php. Got
>>> it. You're owned, bigtime.
>> I have the right to defend myself - especially against charges of
>> criminal activity. Period. You don't like it? Ignore the thread if
>> you don't like it.
>>
>>>> I'm just trying to show people who Rafael
>>>> Martinez-Minuesa Martinez really is
>>> You're doing just fine at showing he's the holder of your leash. Now
>>> sit like a good little poodle.
>> ROFLMAO! You're even more stoopid than most people if you believe that.
>>
>> And if I called you a fraud and a liar, will you just ignore it? I
>> think not. What would your employer do if he/she found out?
>>
>>>> - a troll and a spammer.
>>> SPAM is BI>20. His post was off topic, sure. But not spam. If you're
>>> saying off topic is spam then your posts to comp.lang.php (and
>>> comp.infosystems.www..... are spam too). Difference being: YOU can
>>> lose your account for it faster than he can. Wanna see?
>> Wrong, Gary. And has been for years. You are woefully out of date.
>
> You DON'T get to say what SPAM is, you pitiful SCAMMER.
> The Usenet is not yours and there are far more knowledgeable and
> experienced people than you who know much better than you.
> If you were not so arrogant and had just a little bit of common sense
> you'd listen to them.
>
And neither do you, trolling fraud. But the newsgroup regulars do. And
the majority of them have classified your posts as SPAM.
Sorry, troll.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|