Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 01/06/08 18:22

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:29:03 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>> On Jan 6, 5:50 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:58:48 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>>> <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:21:20 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>>>>> <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:47:33 GMT, Doug Baiter <doug-bai...@no.where>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>>>>>>>> <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In <XrqdnW_lGbgurODanZ2dnUVZ_u_in...@comcast.com> on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In <C3A2D429.F13D%nos...@redcatgroup.co.uk> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs <nos...@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 The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.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.
>>> You DON'T get to say what SPAM is, you pitiful SCAMMER.
>>> The Usenet is not yours and there are far more knowledgeable and
>>> experienced people than you who know much better than you.
>>> If you were not so arrogant and had just a little bit of common sense
>>> you'd listen to them.
>>>
>> And neither do you, trolling fraud.
>
> Ah yes, everyone's a troll and fraud for pointing out what a hypocrite
> you are.
>

Nope. You're a trolling fraud. But I'm not a hypocrite. I don't spam.

>> But the newsgroup regulars do.
>
> No, actually, in an alt.* group, they don't.
>

Wrong again, troll.

>> And the majority of them have classified your posts as SPAM.
>
> Doesn't matter at all. Don't like it? Too bad.
>

It sure does to those ISP's who have canceled accounts due to the
complaints.

>> Sorry, troll.
>
> Everyone that knows what you are is a troll. Neat!

Yep, troll. Projecting again.


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

[Back to original message]