Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 01/06/08 04:00

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 10:14:24 GMT, Doug Baiter <doug-baiter@no.where>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:26:11 -0500, Gary L. Burnore
>> <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:47:33 GMT, Doug Baiter <doug-baiter@no.where>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>> In <XrqdnW_lGbgurODanZ2dnUVZ_u_inZ2d@comcast.com> on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan 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 The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.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 So you have some meaningless, out of date measurement which doesn't say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.
>> My bad - didn't look first at the group list. While perfectly
>> acceptable in AWW, in a comp group you're right in that its off
>> charter which *is* enforcable. Perhaps the zealots in AWW should
>> attempt to have it reclassified into a group that has an official
>> charter, but in the meantime nobody cares :o)
>
> There's really no such thing as a valid charter in an alt.* group.
> Alt.config is a bogus group of morons who want to turn alt into
> another form of big8 groups. Never gonna happen. Of course,
> moderated groups can and do control content but non-moderated groups
> are freeform. Stukkie will just have to learn to use a killfile
> there.
>
>> Nevertheless, please accept my apologies for the mistake.
>
> Accepted. Unfortunately, Jerry won't stop crossposting back to
> comp.*.

Sorry, Gary. I have been attacked and maligned by two trolls in a.w.w
who have cross-posted to c.l.p. and other newsgroups. I will not let
those go away.

However, it may not be a problem from at least one of these for much longer.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[Back to original message]