On Jan 6, 4:58 am, 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 The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.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 So you have some meaningless, out of date measurement which doesn't say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.  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.

You did start it.
It's there for everyone to see.