Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 01/06/08 04:50

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 The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.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 So you have some meaningless, out of date measurement which doesn't say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

Sorry, you 're about 10 years behind the curve.

>> 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.
>
>

Only a fool would believe unsolicited ads where they are not wanted is
not SPAM.

However, it seems you've just called a lot of respected hosting
companies fools.

>
>
>> 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.
>

Nope. Just that YOU are. Can't even afford a spell checker.

>> And it DOES mean something.
>
> Nothing at all.
>
>> Sorry.
>
> Liar.
>

You're the one calling someone a LIAR! ROFLMAO!

>> Your arguments don't work.
>
> It's not an argument, it's a fact.
>

Show me where it is a FACT. Otherwise, it is just YOUR OPINION. And
YOUR ARGUMENT.

>> They're too far out of date.
>
> Good thing is, you don't get to decide.
>

Neither do you.

>>>> 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 have the right to defend myself - especially against charges of
criminal activity. Period. You don't like it? Ignore the thread if
you don't like it.


>> 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.
>

ROFLMAO! You're even more stoopid than most people if you believe that.

And if I called you a fraud and a liar, will you just ignore it? I
think not. What would your employer do if he/she found out?

>> - 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?


Wrong, Gary. And has been for years. You are woefully out of date.

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

[Back to original message]