On Jan 6, 3:29 pm, Jerry Stuckle  wrote:
> RafaMinu wrote:
> > 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 The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.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 So you have some meaningless, out of date measurement which doesn't say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.
>
> Wrong answer, Rafael.  You started it by spamming several newsgroups.

I've asked you in a very polite way to stick to the thread's topic,
which in case you have forgotten (the poor dimwit) is, or rather was
thanks to you, "Usability Job Opportunities".

You didn't because you just can't help making a bigger fool of
yourself, you are as arrogant as stupid.
If you had some sense, you will stop showing the world what a dumbass
you are and cease in your SPAM and SCAM attempts.

If I were you I would start by not posting that inexistent Corporation
in your signature anymore. Every time you do, you're adding more
weight to the criminal actions that might be taken against you.

Think Jerry, just for once, stop and THINK.