|
|
Posted by Gary L. Burnore on 01/06/08 01:37
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 The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.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So you have some meaningless, out of date measurement which doesn't say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.*.
--
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]
|