|
|
Posted by Gary L. Burnore on 01/06/08 01:33
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 The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.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 So you have some meaningless, out of date measurement which doesn't say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.
> Hosting companies DO pay attention to spam
>in alt groups, also. And the good ones don't keep spammers around.
The good ones would ignore frivolus complaints. The good ones know
that FAQ stands for Frequently asked Questions, not an inforcable
document and that charters mean nothing in non-moderated alt groups.
They're called alt. for a reason.
>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?
--
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]
|