Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 01/06/08 18:56

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 13:22:46 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> 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 The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.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.
>
> You're the one who claims that off topic = spam, not me.
>
>
>>>> But the newsgroup regulars do.
>>> No, actually, in an alt.* group, they don't.
>>>
>> Wrong again, troll.
>
> Liar.
>
>>>> 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.
>
> Liar.
>
>
>
>
> Oh, and don't forget:
>
>
> Jerry claims suing is illegal
>
> From: Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
> Message-ID: <dMWdnRMixOBvfx3anZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d@comcast.com>
>
> You'd like that, wouldn't you? But I don't need to sue you. There
> are other ways to handle people like you. I prefer the legal ways.
>
>
>
> Jerry on websites:
>
> From: Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
> Message-ID: <ZfSdnXhomogIeh3anZ2dnUVZ_vCknZ2d@comcast.com>
>
> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> > On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:57:07 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> > <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >> Ok, let's tell your employer you're a criminal and a fraud.
> >> See if you like it?
> >
> > Go for it, dipshit. I've been called far worse. My employer is
> > DataBasix.com. OOPS! Too bad for you.
> >
>
> Oh, you mean the one who can't even keep a website running?
> ROFLMAO!
>
> While also saying
>
> From: Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
> Message-ID: <dMWdnRMixOBvfx3anZ2dnUVZ_qKgnZ2d@comcast.com>
>
> WRONG ANSWER, FRAUD. It has been and is registered. You just
> can't find a web page for it. Sorry, troll.


Gee, you're stuck in a rut, Gary. But then you're just a stoopid troll,
so I expect nothing better from you.

ROFLMAO!

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

[Back to original message]