|
|
Posted by Gary L. Burnore on 01/06/08 16:42
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:29:03 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>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 The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.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 So you have some meaningless, out of date measurement which doesn't say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.
Ah yes, everyone's a troll and fraud for pointing out what a hypocrite
you are.
> But the newsgroup regulars do.
No, actually, in an alt.* group, they don't.
>And the majority of them have classified your posts as SPAM.
Doesn't matter at all. Don't like it? Too bad.
>
>Sorry, troll.
Everyone that knows what you are is a troll. Neat!
--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|