|
|
Posted by Gary L. Burnore on 01/06/08 18:29
On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 13:22:46 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>> 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 The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.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.
>>
>
>Nope. You're a trolling fraud. But I'm not a hypocrite. I don't spam.
You're the one who claims that off topic = spam, not me.
>
>>> But the newsgroup regulars do.
>>
>> No, actually, in an alt.* group, they don't.
>>
>
>Wrong again, troll.
Liar.
>
>>> And the majority of them have classified your posts as SPAM.
>>
>> Doesn't matter at all. Don't like it? Too bad.
>>
>
>It sure does to those ISP's who have canceled accounts due to the
>complaints.
Liar.
Oh, and don't forget:
Jerry claims suing is illegal
From: Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
Message-ID: <dMWdnRMixOBvfx3anZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d@comcast.com>
You'd like that, wouldn't you? But I don't need to sue you. There
are other ways to handle people like you. I prefer the legal ways.
Jerry on websites:
From: Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
Message-ID: <ZfSdnXhomogIeh3anZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com>
Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:57:07 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> Ok, let's tell your employer you're a criminal and a fraud.
>> See if you like it?
>
> Go for it, dipshit. I've been called far worse. My employer is
> DataBasix.com. OOPS! Too bad for you.
>
Oh, you mean the one who can't even keep a website running?
ROFLMAO!
While also saying
From: Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
Message-ID: <dMWdnRMixOBvfx3anZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d@comcast.com>
WRONG ANSWER, FRAUD. It has been and is registered. You just
can't find a web page for it. Sorry, troll.
--
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]
|