In <C3A2D429.F13D%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs  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.

-- 
DG

Dick Gaughan wrote:
> In <C3A2D429.F13D%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs  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The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.

In a.w.w, ads of any kind are considered SPAM.  Same with some of the 
other groups he's posted to.

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

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:57:04 +0100, Dick Gaughan   
wrote:

> In <C3A2D429.F13D%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs  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:
a) Only a measure of severity IMO, not wether or not something is spam.
b) Not the sole definitive definition of spam on usenet.
-- 
Rik Wasmus

On 3/1/08 6:57 pm, in article iabqn3dc2s1cmik2gr4nsm4oshe96oe7q6@4ax.com,
"Dick Gaughan"  wrote:

> In <C3A2D429.F13D%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs  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.

Blimey!  I haven't heard BI used in an argument about SPAM since an ENORMOUS
thread in a freeserve web authoring group many years ago involving the
legendary Tony Morgan.

Those were the days!

-- 
Andy Jacobs
http://www.redcatmedia.co.uk

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.www.webmaster.]
On 2008-01-03, Jerry Stuckle  wrote:

> The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.

Every "official"** definition of Usenet spam that I've seen involves
excessive crossposting or multiposting, and that's what the BI measures.
Out of date? Maybe the threshhold needs to be changed - but it's far from
useless.

> In a.w.w, ads of any kind are considered SPAM.  Same with some of the 
> other groups he's posted to.

Well, that's off-topicness. Being off-topic is generally a bad thing, but
I've not heard a definition for newsgroup spam that involves content, only
number of times posted. (This doesn't make off-topic posting OK, just not
necessarily spam.)

--S

**As official as anything can be on Usenet.


-- 
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA     PGP:0xE3AE35ED  www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

In  on Thu, 03 Jan
2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle 
wrote:

>Dick Gaughan wrote:
>> In <C3A2D429.F13D%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs  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.

>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. 

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.

Until someone else comes up with a better content-blind objective
definition of spam, the BI is still the benchmark.

-- 
DG

Dick Gaughan wrote:
> In  on Thu, 03 Jan
> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle 
> wrote:
> 
>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>> In <C3A2D429.F13D%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs  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.

What you want in your newsgroup is up to you.  We don't want it here.

And BTW - the same is true for c.l.p, and it's in the charter for that 
newsgroup.

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

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
 wrote:

>Dick Gaughan wrote:
>> In <C3A2D429.F13D%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs  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.
>
>In a.w.w, ads of any kind are considered SPAM.  Same with some of the 
>other groups he's posted to.

LMFAO! You "consider" it spam, regardless of the fact that the only
accepted definition means it isn't? Nobody gives a flying toss what
*you* consider spam. It isn't. End of.

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
 wrote:

>Dick Gaughan wrote:
>> In  on Thu, 03 Jan
>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>> In <C3A2D429.F13D%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs  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.
>
LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR
LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR 
Sorry Jerry but again Google shows you're not just misled, but out and
out LYING. The vote went AGAINST your side buddy, which was when some
muppet decided that the vote he'd previously thought was a good idea
was in fact worthless :o)

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
> wrote:
>
>>Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>> In  on Thu, 03 Jan
>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>> In <C3A2D429.F13D%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs  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.

-- 
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
===========================================================================

Doug Baiter <doug-baiter@no.where> writes:

> LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR
> LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR

I don't care who you've got a personal beef with, or whether you choose
to label the OP as "spam" or merely "off-topic." The fact is that long-
standing usenet tradition is to restrict help-wanted posts to designated
jobs groups, and none of these is such a group.

*plonk*

sherm--

-- 
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

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
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>> In  on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>> In <C3A2D429.F13D%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs  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.  Hosting companies DO pay attention to spam 
in alt groups, also.  And the good ones don't keep spammers around.

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!).

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

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:26:11 -0500, 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
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>> In  on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>> In <C3A2D429.F13D%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs  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). Nevertheless, please
accept my apologies for the mistake.

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 5, 3:21 am, Jerry Stuckle  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
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>> In  on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>> In <C3A2D429.F13D%nos...@redcatgroup.co.uk> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs  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.  Hosting companies DO pay attention to spam
>> in alt groups, also.  And the good ones don't keep spammers around.
> 
> I have already forced you to close one of your SCAM websites:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thread/thread/f060789f62bf5263
> 
> Do you want me to go on with the rest?
> 

Sorry, the site is still up and the business is going fine.

But you may not be for long.  Maybe a free plane ride to the U.S. will 
get you to change your mind.

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

In  on Thu, 03 Jan
2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle 
wrote:
>
>Dick Gaughan wrote:
>
>> 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.

That's not defining spam, it's defining what content is acceptable
for an individual newsgroup. I don't know of a single SP which
will take any action on the basis of a Charter breach in an alt.*
newsgroup. A few of the more responsible ones, like mine, might be
arsed on an otherwise slow day to take action on >=BI.

If your view about how spam should be defined (i.e., opinion of
content) were adopted across Usenet it would throw the door wide
open to content-based censorship, vigilantism and rogue
cancellation, the very things the BI was developed to resist. That
kind of approach can occasionally work in tightly moderated
newsgroups - in an unmoderated alt.* newsgroup, trying to enforce
anything is ludicrous and an invitation to entertainment for
trolls and wreckers.

When the original discussions about the BI were taking place, a
lot of argument went into trying to find a 100% trustworthy and
failsafe way of defining spam according to content. It was deemed
impossible. Which is why Seth Breidbart's proposal was adopted -
it was a precise, objectively-calculable number and it was not
related to the content of posts. 

Now, if you can translate your opinion of what spam is into an
algorithm - as simple and workable as the BI - which can be used
for running a spam cancelbot, you'll be doing the whole of Usenet
a big favour, proving yourself much smarter than all those who
were around at that time and you'd maybe find your view about
replacing the BI being greeted by clueful people with something
other than hoots of laughter.

-- 
DG

Mail to usenet@gaelweb.co.uk goes to dev/null.

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 17:51:56 +0000, Dick Gaughan
 wrote:

>In  on Thu, 03 Jan
>2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle 
>wrote:
>>
>>Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>
>That's not defining spam, it's defining what content is acceptable
>for an individual newsgroup. I don't know of a single SP which
>will take any action on the basis of a Charter breach in an alt.*
>newsgroup. A few of the more responsible ones, like mine, might be
>arsed on an otherwise slow day to take action on >=BI.
>
>If your view about how spam should be defined (i.e., opinion of
>content) were adopted across Usenet it would throw the door wide
>open to content-based censorship, vigilantism and rogue
>cancellation, the very things the BI was developed to resist. That
>kind of approach can occasionally work in tightly moderated
>newsgroups - in an unmoderated alt.* newsgroup, trying to enforce
>anything is ludicrous and an invitation to entertainment for
>trolls and wreckers.
>
>When the original discussions about the BI were taking place, a
>lot of argument went into trying to find a 100% trustworthy and
>failsafe way of defining spam according to content. It was deemed
>impossible. Which is why Seth Breidbart's proposal was adopted -
>it was a precise, objectively-calculable number and it was not
>related to the content of posts. 
>
>Now, if you can translate your opinion of what spam is into an
>algorithm - as simple and workable as the BI - which can be used
>for running a spam cancelbot, you'll be doing the whole of Usenet
>a big favour, proving yourself much smarter than all those who
>were around at that time and you'd maybe find your view about
>replacing the BI being greeted by clueful people with something
>other than hoots of laughter.

Jesus wept, AT LAST! The voice of reason, welcome. Where the hell have
you been for the past seven years!?

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:21:20 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
 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
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>> In  on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>> In <C3A2D429.F13D%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs  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
===========================================================================

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
> 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
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>> In  on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>> In <C3A2D429.F13D%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs  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
===========================================================================

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 17:51:56 +0000, Dick Gaughan
 wrote:

>In  on Thu, 03 Jan
>2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle 
>wrote:
>>
>>Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>
>That's not defining spam, it's defining what content is acceptable
>for an individual newsgroup. I don't know of a single SP which
>will take any action on the basis of a Charter breach in an alt.*
>newsgroup.

There aren't unless the complaint is false and the ISP doesn't check
it out first.


> A few of the more responsible ones, like mine, might be
>arsed on an otherwise slow day to take action on >=BI.

BI>20 is spam.  Most NSP's will, indeed, do something about that. 

>
>If your view about how spam should be defined (i.e., opinion of
>content) were adopted across Usenet it would throw the door wide
>open to content-based censorship, vigilantism and rogue
>cancellation, the very things the BI was developed to resist. That
>kind of approach can occasionally work in tightly moderated
>newsgroups - in an unmoderated alt.* newsgroup, trying to enforce
>anything is ludicrous and an invitation to entertainment for
>trolls and wreckers.

Hammer. Nail. Head.
>
>When the original discussions about the BI were taking place, a
>lot of argument went into trying to find a 100% trustworthy and
>failsafe way of defining spam according to content. It was deemed
>impossible. Which is why Seth Breidbart's proposal was adopted -
>it was a precise, objectively-calculable number and it was not
>related to the content of posts. 

Only k00ks claim SPAM based on content.

>Now, if you can translate your opinion of what spam is into an
>algorithm - as simple and workable as the BI - which can be used
>for running a spam cancelbot, you'll be doing the whole of Usenet
>a big favour, proving yourself much smarter than all those who
>were around at that time and you'd maybe find your view about
>replacing the BI being greeted by clueful people with something
>other than hoots of laughter.

Spam is anything HE doesn't like to read.  Problem for him: He's not
an NSP.
-- 
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
===========================================================================

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2:57 pm, Jerry Stuckle  wrote:
>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>> On Jan 5, 3:21 am, Jerry Stuckle  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
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>> In  on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle 
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In <C3A2D429.F13D%nos...@redcatgroup.co.uk> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs  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.  Hosting companies DO pay attention to spam
>>>> in alt groups, also.  And the good ones don't keep spammers around.
>>> I have already forced you to close one of your SCAM websites:
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thread/thread...
>>> Do you want me to go on with the rest?
>> Sorry, the site is still up and the business is going fine.
> 
> WHOIS information for http://www.smartechhomes.com
> 
> Registrant:
>    SMARTECH HOMES, INC.
>    9920 BRIXTON LANE
>    Bethesda, Maryland 20817-1501
>    United States
> 
>    Administrative Contact:
>       Stucle, Jerry  jstuc...@attglobal.net
>       SMARTECH HOMES, INC.
>       9920 BRIXTON LANE
>       Bethesda, Maryland 20817-1501
>       United States
>       3014696605      Fax --
> 
> Jerry Stuckle was the principal of SMARTECH HOMES, INC. which has
> been
> forfeited last year by the Maryland Taxpayer Services Division.
> 
> Entity Name: SMARTECH HOMES, INC.
> Dept ID #: D07297567
> 
> Principal Office (Current): 9920 BRIXTON LANE, BETHESDA, MD 20817
> Resident Agent (Current): JERRY D. STUCKLE, 9920 BRIXTON LANE,
> BETHESDA, MD 20817
> 
> DEPT. ACTION - FORFEITURE       10/06/2006      12:03-AM
> THE ENTITY WAS FORFEITED FOR FAILURE TO FILE PROPERTY RETURN FOR
> 2005.
> For a Maryland entity, its existence has been ended by the State for
> some delinquency.
> 
> Good Standing:  No
> 
> However, more than a year after, Jerry Stuckle, showing a deplorable
> lack of business ethics, stills maintains and deploys the website,
> claiming to belong to a reputable company and offering all kinds of
> products and services.
> 
> If you have purchased any products or services from these fraudulent
> pages or have been approached by Jerry Stuckle in any way to offer you
> any kind of commercial transaction involving this fake company after
> 10/06/2006, you have most likely been the victim of a FRAUD.
> 

Try again, TROLL.  You don't see me advertising this corporation in 
these newsgroups.

And BTW - the corporation is not registered in Maryland. Try again, troll.


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

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:21:20 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>  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
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>> In  on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>> In <C3A2D429.F13D%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs  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.  And this is.

>>  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.   
> 

Gee, it's the good ones who cancel accounts because I show them the 
spam.  It is ENFORCEABLE (get a spell checker).  And it DOES mean something.

Sorry.  Your arguments don't work.  They're too far out of date.

> 
>> 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.  I'm just trying to show people who Rafael 
Martinez-Minuesa Martinez really is - a troll and a spammer.

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

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
>>  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
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>> In  on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>> In <C3A2D429.F13D%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs  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.  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.

However, it may not be a problem from at least one of these for much longer.

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

Dick Gaughan wrote:
> In  on Thu, 03 Jan
> 2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle 
> wrote:
>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
> 
> That's not defining spam, it's defining what content is acceptable
> for an individual newsgroup. I don't know of a single SP which
> will take any action on the basis of a Charter breach in an alt.*
> newsgroup. A few of the more responsible ones, like mine, might be
> arsed on an otherwise slow day to take action on >=BI.
>

I can show you a bunch of them who have canceled accounts because of 
spam in a.w.w.

> If your view about how spam should be defined (i.e., opinion of
> content) were adopted across Usenet it would throw the door wide
> open to content-based censorship, vigilantism and rogue
> cancellation, the very things the BI was developed to resist. That
> kind of approach can occasionally work in tightly moderated
> newsgroups - in an unmoderated alt.* newsgroup, trying to enforce
> anything is ludicrous and an invitation to entertainment for
> trolls and wreckers.
> 

The a.w.w. newsgroup FAQ's specifically prohibit unsolicited ads. 
That's what a.w.w.ads is for.  Like it or not, most RELIABLE ISP's pay 
attention to that fact - and take action based on proven spams.

> When the original discussions about the BI were taking place, a
> lot of argument went into trying to find a 100% trustworthy and
> failsafe way of defining spam according to content. It was deemed
> impossible. Which is why Seth Breidbart's proposal was adopted -
> it was a precise, objectively-calculable number and it was not
> related to the content of posts. 
> 

Breidbart's proposal was accepted by a few people several years ago.  It 
was never accepted by the majority of usenet, and has not been updated 
in several years.

> Now, if you can translate your opinion of what spam is into an
> algorithm - as simple and workable as the BI - which can be used
> for running a spam cancelbot, you'll be doing the whole of Usenet
> a big favour, proving yourself much smarter than all those who
> were around at that time and you'd maybe find your view about
> replacing the BI being greeted by clueful people with something
> other than hoots of laughter.
> 

Very simple.  Unsolicited ads in a newsgroup which doesn't allow 
unsolicited ads (as defined by either the charter or the FAQs accepted 
by a vote of the majority of the regular posters) are considered SPAM.

And reliable ISP's see it that way and cancel accounts because of it.

Simple enough for you?

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

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:58:48 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
 wrote:

>Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:21:20 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>  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
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>> In  on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In <C3A2D429.F13D%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs  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.   
>> 
>
>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.




>  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.

> And it DOES mean something.

Nothing at all.

>Sorry.  

Liar.

> Your arguments don't work.

It's not an argument, it's a fact.

>  They're too far out of date.

Good thing is, you don't get to decide.  

>
>> 
>>> 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'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.

> - 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?
-- 
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
===========================================================================

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:00:21 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
 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
>>>  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
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>> In  on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In <C3A2D429.F13D%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs  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.


> 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.

>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?




-- 
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
===========================================================================

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:58:48 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>  wrote:
> 
>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:21:20 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>  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
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>> In  on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle 
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In <C3A2D429.F13D%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs  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.

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

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:00:21 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>  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
>>>>  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
>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>> In  on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle 
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In <C3A2D429.F13D%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs  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
==================

"RafaMinu"  wrote in message 
news:757c2081-6f50-46f8-a555-

> I have already forced you to close one of your SCAM websites:

Odd. It looks rather open to me :-)

-- 
Richard.

In  on Sat, 05 Jan
2008 23:04:49 -0500, Jerry Stuckle 
wrote:

>Dick Gaughan wrote:
>
>> Now, if you can translate your opinion of what spam is into an
>> algorithm - as simple and workable as the BI - which can be used
>> for running a spam cancelbot, you'll be doing the whole of Usenet
>> a big favour, proving yourself much smarter than all those who
>> were around at that time and you'd maybe find your view about
>> replacing the BI being greeted by clueful people with something
>> other than hoots of laughter.
>
>Very simple.  Unsolicited ads in a newsgroup which doesn't allow 
>unsolicited ads (as defined by either the charter or the FAQs accepted 
>by a vote of the majority of the regular posters) are considered SPAM.
>
>And reliable ISP's see it that way and cancel accounts because of it.
>
>Simple enough for you?

You are the Red Queen AICMFP.

-- 
DG

On Jan 6, 5:50 am, Jerry Stuckle  wrote:
> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> > On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:58:48 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> >  wrote:
>
> >> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:21:20 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> >>>  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
> >>>>>>  wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
> >>>>>>>> In  on Thu, 03 Jan
> >>>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle 
> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> In <C3A2D429.F13D%nos...@redcatgroup.co.uk> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008> >>>>>>>>>> 18:04:25 퍍, Andy Jacobs  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.

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 6, 5:50 am, Jerry Stuckle  wrote:
>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:58:48 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>  wrote:
>>>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:21:20 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>>>  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
>>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In  on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle 
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In <C3A2D429.F13D%nos...@redcatgroup.co.uk> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs  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 cha