|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 01/06/08 22:28
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 06 Jan 2008 22:15:42
GMT Gary L. Burnore scribed:
>>> Spam is well defined and has been for years. Jerry and a few
>>> dipshits want to redefine spam. If they could succeed (they can't)
>>> they'd make USENet unreadable as real spam would be free to pass.
>>
>>Well, I admittedly might not be adhering to the technical definition
>>of "spam" but spam to me is anything off-subject which I find
>>offensive and in particular attempts to influence the reader in ways
>>not germane to the scope of the group. Be that as it may, I'm not
>>going to argue about it and promulgate the offense. Whatever it is or
>>isn't, most of the posts in this thread are definitely not wanted by
>>the vast majority of perusers where they do, indeed, appear. The
>>posters of said material are clearly either oblivious or indifferent
>>to the fact. Ergo, one man's spam is another man's crap - all of
>>which is undesirable.
>
> The problem is, calling something spam when it's not does two
> things(*): It lessens the real meaning of the term, making it harder
> to fight those things that are actual spam, and it makes the person
> claiming it be spam to fight an unwinable fight.
>
> Instead of calling it spam, call it what it is. Off topic. If you're
> in a comp.* group, covered by an enforceable charter, that's enough to
> get someone to stop in most cases.
>
> (*) probably more than two but those are the two that are relevent.
Well, I agree with your basic statement, but allowances should be made for
general usage because whether we like it or not, many people will so-
generalize typical "crap" as "spam" in blythe unconcern for the actual
definition of the term. This seems quite reasonable to me but I suppose
reasonability is out of place in these specific environs...
--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|