Posted by Gary L. Burnore on 01/06/08 04:40

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:58:48 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:

>Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:21:20 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Gary L. Burnore 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 The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.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 So you have some meaningless, out of date measurement which doesn't say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.
>>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
>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.




> 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.

> And it DOES mean something.

Nothing at all.

>Sorry.

Liar.

> Your arguments don't work.

It's not an argument, it's a fact.

> They're too far out of date.

Good thing is, you don't get to decide.

>
>>
>>> 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'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.

> - 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?
--
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
===========================================================================

[Back to original message]