On Jan 6, 5:00 am, Jerry Stuckle  wrote:
> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> > On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 10:14:24 GMT, Doug Baiter <doug-bai...@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-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 The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.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 So you have some meaningless, out of date measurement which doesn't say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.
> >> 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.
You are the one that attacked me.
Funny that being a SCAMMER, you have the nerve to attack honest
people.
Proof that besides being a scammer, you are an idiotic moron as well.

> However, it may not be a problem from at least one of these for much longer.
Kiss my arse, Jerry.