Posted by Rik Wasmus on 01/03/08 19:04

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:57:04 +0100, Dick Gaughan <usenet@gaelweb.co.uk>
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:
a) Only a measure of severity IMO, not wether or not something is spam.
b) Not the sole definitive definition of spam on usenet.
--
Rik Wasmus

[Back to original message]