Posted by Gary L. Burnore on 01/06/08 04:43

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:00:21 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:

>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 The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.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 So you have some meaningless, out of date measurement which doesn't say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.

Liar.


> 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.

Because you're owned. Owned owned owned.

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

If he loses an account because you lied to his NSP, I'll see to it he
gets a free account. Since you've decided to go play NetKKKop, I'll
take every one of your off charter posts to your provider, comcast. K?




--
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]