|
|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 01/06/08 04:57
Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> 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 The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.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 So you have some meaningless, out of date measurement which doesn't say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.
>
Let's see you prove that statement, Gary. Otherwise you're just as bad
as the troll is.
>
>> 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.
>
Ok, let's tell your employer you're a criminal and a fraud. See if you
like it?
But you're obviously a troll - familiar over a bunch of newsgroups and
message boards on the usenet. A quick search brings up several
complaints about your trolling.
So from now on I'll just ignore you - like the ignorant should be.
>> 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?
>
>
No lies. Just showing the ISP's what they've done.
And fine - post all you want to comcast. It doesn't bother me, because I
don't spam.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
[Back to original message]
|