"Westlandbt"  wrote in message 
news:83396852508@news.cnntp.org...
> WereEveryWhere.net seeks to become the most popular Social Networking 
> Website
> offering an interactive, user-submitted network of friends, personal 
> profiles,
> video chat, blogs, groups, photos, music and videos for adults 
> internationally.
>
Another one?

Flower of romance wrote:
> Westlandbt wrote

> > Website
>
> Another one?

Oi, Fuckwit of ringpiece. Stop cross-posting spam.

--
trin

"trin"  wrote in message 
news:46abb4a9-cb96-4ac5-90a4-93d439c26b06@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Flower of romance wrote:
>> Westlandbt wrote
>
>> > Website
>>
>> Another one?
>
> Oi, Fuckwit of ringpiece. Stop cross-posting spam.
I'm assuming you were responding to Westlandbt, who actually posted the 
article.

>
> --
> trin

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 01:49:42 +0100, "Flower of romance"
 blethered:

>
>"trin"  wrote in message 
>news:46abb4a9-cb96-4ac5-90a4-93d439c26b06@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> Flower of romance wrote:
>>> Westlandbt wrote
>>
>>> > Website
>>>
>>> Another one?
>>
>> Oi, Fuckwit of ringpiece. Stop cross-posting spam.
>I'm assuming you were responding to Westlandbt, who actually posted the 
>article.

You left the crossposts in on your reply.


-- 
First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing because verbing weirds 
language.
Then they arrival for the nouns, and I speech nothing because I no verbs.

"Halla"  wrote in message 
news:8t8f44pltsppj7q32fd6j67ju5hk6itena@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 01:49:42 +0100, "Flower of romance"
>  blethered:
>
>>
>>"trin"  wrote in message
>>news:46abb4a9-cb96-4ac5-90a4-93d439c26b06@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>> Flower of romance wrote:
>>>> Westlandbt wrote
>>>
>>>> > Website
>>>>
>>>> Another one?
>>>
>>> Oi, Fuckwit of ringpiece. Stop cross-posting spam.
>>I'm assuming you were responding to Westlandbt, who actually posted the
>>article.
>
> You left the crossposts in on your reply.
Is that what Trin was harping about? It was hard to tell.

Flower of romance wrote:
> "trin wrote
> Flower of romance wrote:
> >> Westlandbt wrote

> > > > Website
>
> > > Another one?
>
> > Oi, Fuckwit of ringpiece. Stop cross-posting spam.
>
> I'm assuming you were responding to Westlandbt, who actually posted the
> article.

No fucktard (ha! in your dreams, perhaps), I'm talking to you, you
crossposting toss off.

--
trin

Halla wrote:
> Flower of romance blethered:
> > trin wrote
> >> Flower of romance wrote:
> >>> Westlandbt wrote

> >>> > Website
>
> >>> Another one?
>
> >> Oi, Fuckwit of ringpiece. Stop cross-posting spam.
> >
> >I'm assuming you were responding to Westlandbt, who actually posted the
> >article.
>
> You left the crossposts in on your reply.

Aside from which, even in Ggroups I didn't get the spammy original,
and so wouldn't've even known about it if Fuckwit of ringpiece hadn't
reposted it.

--
trin

Flower of romance wrote:
> Halla wrote
> > Flower of romance blethered:
> >> trin wrote
> >>> Flower of romance wrote:
> >>>> Westlandbt wrote

> >>>> > Website
>
> >>>> Another one?
>
> >>> Oi, Fuckwit of ringpiece. Stop cross-posting spam.
> >>
> >>I'm assuming you were responding to Westlandbt, who actually posted the
> >>article.
>
> > You left the crossposts in on your reply.
>
> Is that what Trin was harping about? It was hard to tell.

Trust me, only a brain dead moron'd find it hard to tell what I was on
about.

Oooh, lookie what we have here...

--
trin

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 15:58:06 -0700 (PDT), trin
 blethered:

>Halla wrote:
>> Flower of romance blethered:
>> > trin wrote
>> >> Flower of romance wrote:
>> >>> Westlandbt wrote
>
>> >>> > Website
>>
>> >>> Another one?
>>
>> >> Oi, Fuckwit of ringpiece. Stop cross-posting spam.
>> >
>> >I'm assuming you were responding to Westlandbt, who actually posted the
>> >article.
>>
>> You left the crossposts in on your reply.
>
>Aside from which, even in Ggroups I didn't get the spammy original,
>and so wouldn't've even known about it if Fuckwit of ringpiece hadn't
>reposted it.

<nods> Yeah, me too, although I thought I would let you point that out
lots more eloquently. <g>


-- 
First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing because verbing weirds 
language.
Then they arrival for the nouns, and I speech nothing because I no verbs.

Halla wrote:
> trin blethered:

> >> >> Oi, Fuckwit of ringpiece. Stop cross-posting spam.
...
> >> You left the crossposts in on your reply.
>
> >Aside from which, even in Ggroups I didn't get the spammy original,
> >and so wouldn't've even known about it if Fuckwit of ringpiece hadn't
> >reposted it.
>
> <nods> Yeah, me too, although I thought I would let you point that out
> lots more eloquently. <g>

You're too kind. ;)

--
trin

On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 15:24:37 -0700 (PDT), trin
 blethered:

>Halla wrote:
>> trin blethered:
>
>> >> >> Oi, Fuckwit of ringpiece. Stop cross-posting spam.
>...
>> >> You left the crossposts in on your reply.
>>
>> >Aside from which, even in Ggroups I didn't get the spammy original,
>> >and so wouldn't've even known about it if Fuckwit of ringpiece hadn't
>> >reposted it.
>>
>> <nods> Yeah, me too, although I thought I would let you point that out
>> lots more eloquently. <g>
>
>You're too kind. ;)

Sometimes I'm really horrible. It balances out. ;-)


-- 
First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing because verbing weirds 
language.
Then they arrival for the nouns, and I speech nothing because I no verbs.

"trin"  wrote in message 
news:10cbaa99-7652-496c-a558-881fd4a3ab9c@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Flower of romance wrote:
>> Halla wrote
>> > Flower of romance blethered:
>> >> trin wrote
>> >>> Flower of romance wrote:
>> >>>> Westlandbt wrote
>
>> >>>> > Website
>>
>> >>>> Another one?
>>
>> >>> Oi, Fuckwit of ringpiece. Stop cross-posting spam.
>> >>
>> >>I'm assuming you were responding to Westlandbt, who actually posted the
>> >>article.
>>
>> > You left the crossposts in on your reply.
>>
>> Is that what Trin was harping about? It was hard to tell.
>
> Trust me,

Not gonna happen

>only a brain dead moron'd find it hard to tell what I was on
> about.

Know I got what you were on about but I was curios if you knew. Given the 
definition of spam as in  unsolicited e-mail then how can you post an 
unsolicited email on a public forum? Get it now or do you want it in fucking 
semaphore?
>
> Oooh, lookie what we have here...

You're the one judging someone you don't know.

>
> --
> trin

"trin"  wrote in message 
news:5c90da53-3dc9-4b7f-9207-8dfc5256b91b@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Flower of romance wrote:
>> "trin wrote
>> Flower of romance wrote:
>> >> Westlandbt wrote
>
>> > > > Website
>>
>> > > Another one?
>>
>> > Oi, Fuckwit of ringpiece. Stop cross-posting spam.
>>
>> I'm assuming you were responding to Westlandbt, who actually posted the
>> article.
>
> No fucktard (ha! in your dreams, perhaps), I'm talking to you, you
> crossposting toss off.

So you don't like crossposting? Any particular reason or do you expect the 
world to orbit around you?

>
> --
> trin

Flower of romance wrote:
> trin wrote
> > Flower of romance wrote:
> >> trin wrote

> >> > Oi, Fuckwit of ringpiece. Stop cross-posting spam.
>
> >> I'm assuming you were responding to Westlandbt, who actually posted the
> >> article.
>
> > No fucktard (ha! in your dreams, perhaps), I'm talking to you, you
> > crossposting toss off.
>
> So you don't like crossposting? Any particular reason or do you expect the
> world to orbit around you?

Yes.

--
trin

Flower of romance wrote:
> trin wrote
> > Flower of romance wrote:
> >> Halla wrote
...
> >> >> trin wrote

> >> >>> Oi, Fuckwit of ringpiece. Stop cross-posting spam.
...
> >> > You left the crossposts in on your reply.
>
> >> Is that what Trin was harping about? It was hard to tell.
>
> > Trust me,
>
> Not gonna happen

Shame, you could learn - a lot.

> >only a brain dead moron'd find it hard to tell what I was on
> > about.
>
> Know I got what you were on about

No, I don't think I'll know that, 'cause I don't think you really did.

> but I was curios if you knew.

Shockingly yeah, sometimes I do know what I'm on about - not all the
time, I'll grant, but sometimes yes, and this time, very definitely
yes.

> Given the definition of spam as in  unsolicited e-mail

You might wanna check the latest definitions, times've moved on
y'know.

> how can you post an unsolicited email on a public forum?

1) It's an unsolicited, off-topic, message, and thus, contrary to the
Charter (although, at least it was limited to only four groups, as per
Charter).
2) It's a newsgroup, not a forum.

> Get it now or do you want it in fucking semaphore?

Bet you still don't get it though.

> > Oooh, lookie what we have here...
>
> You're the one judging someone you don't know.

Yeah, I know, 's good fun, innit!

--
trin

"Flower of romance"  wrote in message 
news:XcQ1k.133357$UP6.100476@newsfe14.ams2...
>
> "Halla"  wrote in message 
> news:8t8f44pltsppj7q32fd6j67ju5hk6itena@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 01:49:42 +0100, "Flower of romance"
>>  blethered:
>>
>>>
>>>"trin"  wrote in message
>>>news:46abb4a9-cb96-4ac5-90a4-93d439c26b06@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Flower of romance wrote:
>>>>> Westlandbt wrote
>>>>
>>>>> > Website
>>>>>
>>>>> Another one?
>>>>
>>>> Oi, Fuckwit of ringpiece. Stop cross-posting spam.
>>>I'm assuming you were responding to Westlandbt, who actually posted the
>>>article.
>>
>> You left the crossposts in on your reply.

> Is that what Trin was harping about? It was hard to tell.

Many ISPs delete spam before it appears on the newsgroup. The first time the 
ng posters see it is when some idiot replies to it, and so undermines all 
the good work the ISPs are doing by removing it. If you really want to reply 
to spammers, do so on the ng it appears on, and *remove the crossposts* to 
other groups who didn't get it in the first place.

All clear now?

Jani

"trin"  wrote in message 
news:bda5916e-fad0-4cfb-b89c-301e23b740be@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Flower of romance wrote:
>> trin wrote
>> > Flower of romance wrote:
>> >> Halla wrote
> ...
>> >> >> trin wrote
>
>> >> >>> Oi, Fuckwit of ringpiece. Stop cross-posting spam.
> ...
>> >> > You left the crossposts in on your reply.
>>
>> >> Is that what Trin was harping about? It was hard to tell.
>>
>> > Trust me,
>>
>> Not gonna happen
>
> Shame, you could learn - a lot.

Not from you.

>
>> >only a brain dead moron'd find it hard to tell what I was on
>> > about.
>>
>> Know I got what you were on about
>
> No, I don't think I'll know that, 'cause I don't think you really did.

Your opinion of qhat I got equates to zero.

>
>> but I was curios if you knew.
>
> Shockingly yeah, sometimes I do know what I'm on about - not all the
> time, I'll grant, but sometimes yes, and this time, very definitely
> yes.
>
>> Given the definition of spam as in  unsolicited e-mail
>
> You might wanna check the latest definitions, times've moved on
> y'know.
>

That'd be a redefinition.
>> how can you post an unsolicited email on a public forum?
>
> 1) It's an unsolicited, off-topic, message, and thus, contrary to the
> Charter (although, at least it was limited to only four groups, as per
> Charter).

1) Then by that definition, most posts on here are spam and I didn't see you 
objecting to those. Hipocrite alert.

> 2) It's a newsgroup, not a forum.
>
Potato, potato.

>> Get it now or do you want it in fucking semaphore?
>
> Bet you still don't get it though.
You lost your bet.

>
>> > Oooh, lookie what we have here...
>>
>> You're the one judging someone you don't know.
>
> Yeah, I know, 's good fun, innit!
Not as much fun as exposing such people as idiots.

>
> --
> trin

"Jani"  wrote in message 
news:g2eeng$qjq$1@energise.enta.net...
>
> "Flower of romance"  wrote in message 
> news:XcQ1k.133357$UP6.100476@newsfe14.ams2...
>>
>> "Halla"  wrote in message 
>> news:8t8f44pltsppj7q32fd6j67ju5hk6itena@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 01:49:42 +0100, "Flower of romance"
>>>  blethered:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"trin"  wrote in message
>>>>news:46abb4a9-cb96-4ac5-90a4-93d439c26b06@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Flower of romance wrote:
>>>>>> Westlandbt wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> > Website
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another one?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oi, Fuckwit of ringpiece. Stop cross-posting spam.
>>>>I'm assuming you were responding to Westlandbt, who actually posted the
>>>>article.
>>>
>>> You left the crossposts in on your reply.
>
>> Is that what Trin was harping about? It was hard to tell.
>
> Many ISPs delete spam before it appears on the newsgroup.

I'm aware of that, Jani but the lines of spam on newsgroups are fuzzy.
>The first time the ng posters see it is when some idiot replies to it, and 
>so undermines all the good work the ISPs are doing by removing it.

Good work? Jani, the best spam filters in the world occasionally misfire an 
delete a perfectl good post.

>If you really want to reply to spammers, do so on the ng it appears on, and 
>*remove the crossposts* to other groups who didn't get it in the first 
>place.

Jani. I don't reply to what I see as spam. And as for crossposts. If they 
weren't allowed then those all so helpful ISPs would remove the 
crossposting.

>
> All clear now?

Do you?????

>
> Jani
>

"trin"  wrote in message 
news:34d70514-a08e-45a5-88c9-4265b99ff0f7@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Flower of romance wrote:
>> trin wrote
>> > Flower of romance wrote:
>> >> trin wrote
>
>> >> > Oi, Fuckwit of ringpiece. Stop cross-posting spam.
>>
>> >> I'm assuming you were responding to Westlandbt, who actually posted 
>> >> the
>> >> article.
>>
>> > No fucktard (ha! in your dreams, perhaps), I'm talking to you, you
>> > crossposting toss off.
>>
>> So you don't like crossposting? Any particular reason or do you expect 
>> the
>> world to orbit around you?
>
> Yes.

I thought so. Don't hold your breath waiting will you?

>
> --
> trin

"Flower of romance"  wrote in message 
news:BZL2k.96916$_c7.26485@newsfe16.ams2...
>
> "Jani"  wrote in message 
> news:g2eeng$qjq$1@energise.enta.net...
>>
>> "Flower of romance"  wrote in message 
>> news:XcQ1k.133357$UP6.100476@newsfe14.ams2...
>>>
>>> "Halla"  wrote in message 
>>> news:8t8f44pltsppj7q32fd6j67ju5hk6itena@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 01:49:42 +0100, "Flower of romance"
>>>>  blethered:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"trin"  wrote in message
>>>>>news:46abb4a9-cb96-4ac5-90a4-93d439c26b06@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> Flower of romance wrote:
>>>>>>> Westlandbt wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Website
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another one?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oi, Fuckwit of ringpiece. Stop cross-posting spam.
>>>>>I'm assuming you were responding to Westlandbt, who actually posted the
>>>>>article.
>>>>
>>>> You left the crossposts in on your reply.
>>
>>> Is that what Trin was harping about? It was hard to tell.
>>
>> Many ISPs delete spam before it appears on the newsgroup.
>
> I'm aware of that, Jani but the lines of spam on newsgroups are fuzzy.

Is there any indication that the post you replied to was anything other than 
an unsolicited advertisement? Or that replying to the OP would result in 
informative, entertaining or meaningful dialogue of interest to URP posters?


>>The first time the ng posters see it is when some idiot replies to it, and 
>>so undermines all the good work the ISPs are doing by removing it.
>
> Good work? Jani, the best spam filters in the world occasionally misfire 
> an delete a perfectl good post.

What does that have to do with my point?

>
>>If you really want to reply to spammers, do so on the ng it appears on, 
>>and *remove the crossposts* to other groups who didn't get it in the first 
>>place.
>
> Jani. I don't reply to what I see as spam.

What, exactly, in the original post gave you the idea that it was not spam?

And as for crossposts. If they
> weren't allowed then those all so helpful ISPs would remove the 
> crossposting.

And what do you think the purpose of crossposting is? It *does* have a 
positive function, but that function is not spreading spam.
>
>>
>> All clear now?
>
> Do you?????

Do I what?

Jani

"Jani"  wrote in message 
news:g2h6r1$2llr$1@energise.enta.net...
>
> "Flower of romance"  wrote in message 
> news:BZL2k.96916$_c7.26485@newsfe16.ams2...
>>
>> "Jani"  wrote in message 
>> news:g2eeng$qjq$1@energise.enta.net...
>>>
>>> "Flower of romance"  wrote in message 
>>> news:XcQ1k.133357$UP6.100476@newsfe14.ams2...
>>>>
>>>> "Halla"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:8t8f44pltsppj7q32fd6j67ju5hk6itena@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 01:49:42 +0100, "Flower of romance"
>>>>>  blethered:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"trin"  wrote in message
>>>>>>news:46abb4a9-cb96-4ac5-90a4-93d439c26b06@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> Flower of romance wrote:
>>>>>>>> Westlandbt wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > Website
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Another one?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oi, Fuckwit of ringpiece. Stop cross-posting spam.
>>>>>>I'm assuming you were responding to Westlandbt, who actually posted 
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>article.
>>>>>
>>>>> You left the crossposts in on your reply.
>>>
>>>> Is that what Trin was harping about? It was hard to tell.
>>>
>>> Many ISPs delete spam before it appears on the newsgroup.
>>
>> I'm aware of that, Jani but the lines of spam on newsgroups are fuzzy.
>
> Is there any indication that the post you replied to was anything other 
> than an unsolicited advertisement? Or that replying to the OP would result 
> in informative, entertaining or meaningful dialogue of interest to URP 
> posters?

Very little on newsgroups is solicited content; hence my previous point.
>
>
>>>The first time the ng posters see it is when some idiot replies to it, 
>>>and so undermines all the good work the ISPs are doing by removing it.
>>
>> Good work? Jani, the best spam filters in the world occasionally misfire 
>> an delete a perfectl good post.
>
> What does that have to do with my point?

It has plenty to do with mine.

>
>>
>>>If you really want to reply to spammers, do so on the ng it appears on, 
>>>and *remove the crossposts* to other groups who didn't get it in the 
>>>first place.
>>
>> Jani. I don't reply to what I see as spam.
>
> What, exactly, in the original post gave you the idea that it was not 
> spam?

What an odd question. The aboove should answer the question, or not.

>
> And as for crossposts. If they
>> weren't allowed then those all so helpful ISPs would remove the 
>> crossposting.
>
> And what do you think the purpose of crossposting is? It *does* have a 
> positive function, but that function is not spreading spam.

Why do you think news hosts allow it if it's a bad thing and yet block 
"spam"?
>>
>>>
>>> All clear now?
>>
>> Do you?????
>
> Do I what?

Find it clear.

>
> Jani
>
>

Flower of romance wrote:
> trin wrote
> > Flower of romance wrote:
...
> >> >> >> trin wrote

> >> >> >>> Oi, Fuckwit of ringpiece. Stop cross-posting spam.
...
> >> Given the definition of spam as in  unsolicited e-mail
>
> > You might wanna check the latest definitions, times've moved on
> > y'know.
>
> That'd be a redefinition.

Yes, and the redefinition of nice is pleasant, and other such
associated words, or are you telling me you still only define the word
nice in its original sense?

> >> how can you post an unsolicited email on a public forum?
>
> > 1) It's an unsolicited, off-topic, message, and thus, contrary to the
> > Charter (although, at least it was limited to only four groups, as per
> > Charter).
>
> 1) Then by that definition, most posts on here are spam and I didn't see you
> objecting to those. Hipocrite alert.

Ummm, no. In fact, it's pretty much IMPOSSIBLE for an URPer (those who
are, know, those who aren't... wannabes ;p) to post off-topic.

> > 2) It's a newsgroup, not a forum.
>
> Potato, potato.

Ummm, no. Forums are set up entirely differently.

> >> Get it now or do you want it in fucking semaphore?
>
> > Bet you still don't get it though.
>
> You lost your bet.

Liar liar, yer bums on fire!

Oooh lookie, three strikes in one post. Sorry dear, but you're out.

> >> > Oooh, lookie what we have here...
>
> >> You're the one judging someone you don't know.
>
> > Yeah, I know, 's good fun, innit!
>
> Not as much fun as exposing such people as idiots.

Well yeah, gotta admit, I did so enjoy exposing you as an idiot, but I
wasn't gonna brag, until you mentioned it.

--
trin

"trin"  wrote in message 
news:0d8c4f92-c075-4453-901f-44278df4f7b9@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Flower of romance wrote:
>> trin wrote
>> > Flower of romance wrote:
> ...
>> >> >> >> trin wrote
>
>> >> >> >>> Oi, Fuckwit of ringpiece. Stop cross-posting spam.
> ...
>> >> Given the definition of spam as in  unsolicited e-mail
>>
>> > You might wanna check the latest definitions, times've moved on
>> > y'know.
>>
>> That'd be a redefinition.
>
> Yes, and the redefinition of nice is pleasant, and other such
> associated words, or are you telling me you still only define the word
> nice in its original sense?

Sure, Why not?

>
>> >> how can you post an unsolicited email on a public forum?
>>
>> > 1) It's an unsolicited, off-topic, message, and thus, contrary to the
>> > Charter (although, at least it was limited to only four groups, as per
>> > Charter).
>>
>> 1) Then by that definition, most posts on here are spam and I didn't see 
>> you
>> objecting to those. Hipocrite alert.
>
> Ummm, no. In fact, it's pretty much IMPOSSIBLE for an URPer (those who
> are, know, those who aren't... wannabes ;p) to post off-topic.
>
>> > 2) It's a newsgroup, not a forum.
>>
>> Potato, potato.
>
> Ummm, no. Forums are set up entirely differently.

Both are places where people post. Near enough.

>
>> >> Get it now or do you want it in fucking semaphore?
>>
>> > Bet you still don't get it though.
>>
>> You lost your bet.
>
> Liar liar, yer bums on fire!

Conjecture.

>
> Oooh lookie, three strikes in one post. Sorry dear, but you're out.
>
>> >> > Oooh, lookie what we have here...
>>
>> >> You're the one judging someone you don't know.
>>
>> > Yeah, I know, 's good fun, innit!
>>
>> Not as much fun as exposing such people as idiots.
>
> Well yeah, gotta admit, I did so enjoy exposing you as an idiot, but I
> wasn't gonna brag, until you mentioned it.

You only exposed yourself as an idiot but I guess you aren't bright enough 
to have got that.

>
> --
> trin

"Flower of romance"  wrote in message 
news:4%Z2k.87838$SA7.84042@newsfe09.ams2...
>
> "Jani"  wrote in message 
> news:g2h6r1$2llr$1@energise.enta.net...
>>
>> "Flower of romance"  wrote in message 
>> news:BZL2k.96916$_c7.26485@newsfe16.ams2...
>>>
>>> "Jani"  wrote in message 
>>> news:g2eeng$qjq$1@energise.enta.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Flower of romance"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:XcQ1k.133357$UP6.100476@newsfe14.ams2...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Halla"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:8t8f44pltsppj7q32fd6j67ju5hk6itena@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 01:49:42 +0100, "Flower of romance"
>>>>>>  blethered:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"trin"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:46abb4a9-cb96-4ac5-90a4-93d439c26b06@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>> Flower of romance wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Westlandbt wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > Website
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Another one?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oi, Fuckwit of ringpiece. Stop cross-posting spam.
>>>>>>>I'm assuming you were responding to Westlandbt, who actually posted 
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>article.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You left the crossposts in on your reply.
>>>>
>>>>> Is that what Trin was harping about? It was hard to tell.
>>>>
>>>> Many ISPs delete spam before it appears on the newsgroup.
>>>
>>> I'm aware of that, Jani but the lines of spam on newsgroups are fuzzy.
>>
>> Is there any indication that the post you replied to was anything other 
>> than an unsolicited advertisement? Or that replying to the OP would 
>> result in informative, entertaining or meaningful dialogue of interest to 
>> URP posters?
>
> Very little on newsgroups is solicited content; hence my previous point.

There is a difference between a post which is on-topic and intended to 
elicit meaningful replies, and one which is unsolicited, irrelevant and 
crossposted.


>>>>The first time the ng posters see it is when some idiot replies to it, 
>>>>and so undermines all the good work the ISPs are doing by removing it.
>>>
>>> Good work? Jani, the best spam filters in the world occasionally misfire 
>>> an delete a perfectl good post.
>>
>> What does that have to do with my point?
>
> It has plenty to do with mine.

Your point being that non-spam posts are sometimes deleted in error, which 
doesn't have anything to do with spam being removed by the ISP, and a 
respondent bringing it into the group knowing it's spam.


>
>>
>>>
>>>>If you really want to reply to spammers, do so on the ng it appears on, 
>>>>and *remove the crossposts* to other groups who didn't get it in the 
>>>>first place.
>>>
>>> Jani. I don't reply to what I see as spam.
>>
>> What, exactly, in the original post gave you the idea that it was not 
>> spam?
>
> What an odd question. The aboove should answer the question, or not.

It's not an odd question at all. Why did you think the original post was not 
spam?

>
>>
>> And as for crossposts. If they
>>> weren't allowed then those all so helpful ISPs would remove the 
>>> crossposting.
>>
>> And what do you think the purpose of crossposting is? It *does* have a 
>> positive function, but that function is not spreading spam.
>
> Why do you think news hosts allow it if it's a bad thing and yet block 
> "spam"?

I didn't say it was a "bad thing". In fact, I said quite clearly that it 
does have a purpose. Now, as I asked, do you *know* what that purpose is?


>>>
>>>>
>>>> All clear now?
>>>
>>> Do you?????
>>
>> Do I what?
>
> Find it clear.

Oh aye. It was "clear" from your first posts here, but you got the benefit 
of the doubt. Briefly.

Jani

"Jani"  wrote in message 
news:g3100v$6gs$1@energise.enta.net...
>
> "Flower of romance"  wrote in message 
> news:4%Z2k.87838$SA7.84042@newsfe09.ams2...
>>
>> "Jani"  wrote in message 
>> news:g2h6r1$2llr$1@energise.enta.net...
>>>
>>> "Flower of romance"  wrote in message 
>>> news:BZL2k.96916$_c7.26485@newsfe16.ams2...
>>>>
>>>> "Jani"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:g2eeng$qjq$1@energise.enta.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Flower of romance"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:XcQ1k.133357$UP6.100476@newsfe14.ams2...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Halla"  wrote in message 
>>>>>> news:8t8f44pltsppj7q32fd6j67ju5hk6itena@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 01:49:42 +0100, "Flower of romance"
>>>>>>>  blethered:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"trin"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:46abb4a9-cb96-4ac5-90a4-93d439c26b06@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>> Flower of romance wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Westlandbt wrote
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > Website
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Another one?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oi, Fuckwit of ringpiece. Stop cross-posting spam.
>>>>>>>>I'm assuming you were responding to Westlandbt, who actually posted 
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>article.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You left the crossposts in on your reply.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that what Trin was harping about? It was hard to tell.
>>>>>
>>>>> Many ISPs delete spam before it appears on the newsgroup.
>>>>
>>>> I'm aware of that, Jani but the lines of spam on newsgroups are fuzzy.
>>>
>>> Is there any indication that the post you replied to was anything other 
>>> than an unsolicited advertisement? Or that replying to the OP would 
>>> result in informative, entertaining or meaningful dialogue of interest 
>>> to URP posters?
>>
>> Very little on newsgroups is solicited content; hence my previous point.
>
> There is a difference between a post which is on-topic and intended to 
> elicit meaningful replies, and one which is unsolicited, irrelevant and 
> crossposted.

As I said, most posts are unsolicited and as for irrelevent, I can see many 
irrelevent ones on this group and they do no harm whatsoever. As for 
crossposted, Is there any particular reason why you object to crossposting 
or are you just following the herd? After all it's not really your business 
what other groups a person chooses to post. A crosspost just links anyway, 
it doesn't copy the entire post over the groups.
>
>
>>>>>The first time the ng posters see it is when some idiot replies to it, 
>>>>>and so undermines all the good work the ISPs are doing by removing it.
>>>>
>>>> Good work? Jani, the best spam filters in the world occasionally 
>>>> misfire an delete a perfectl good post.
>>>
>>> What does that have to do with my point?
>>
>> It has plenty to do with mine.
>
> Your point being that non-spam posts are sometimes deleted in error, which 
> doesn't have anything to do with spam being removed by the ISP, and a 
> respondent bringing it into the group knowing it's spam.

No. My point is that what is spam and what isn't is based mostly on opinion 
especially in public places such as newsgroups,   and opinions differ 
greatly.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>If you really want to reply to spammers, do so on the ng it appears on, 
>>>>>and *remove the crossposts* to other groups who didn't get it in the 
>>>>>first place.
>>>>
>>>> Jani. I don't reply to what I see as spam.
>>>
>>> What, exactly, in the original post gave you the idea that it was not 
>>> spam?
>>
>> What an odd question. The aboove should answer the question, or not.
>
> It's not an odd question at all. Why did you think the original post was 
> not spam?
The question has already been answered. Do you have a problem with the 
indivdual's right to his or her opinion?

>
>>
>>>
>>> And as for crossposts. If they
>>>> weren't allowed then those all so helpful ISPs would remove the 
>>>> crossposting.
>>>
>>> And what do you think the purpose of crossposting is? It *does* have a 
>>> positive function, but that function is not spreading spam.
>>
>> Why do you think news hosts allow it if it's a bad thing and yet block 
>> "spam"?
>
> I didn't say it was a "bad thing". In fact, I said quite clearly that it 
> does have a purpose. Now, as I asked, do you *know* what that purpose is?

It doesn't have a purpose. People have a purpose.
>
>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All clear now?
>>>>
>>>> Do you?????
>>>
>>> Do I what?
>>
>> Find it clear.
>
> Oh aye. It was "clear" from your first posts here, but you got the benefit 
> of the doubt. Briefly.

Benefit of what doubt? And  what makes you think that you have the benefit 
of the doubt?

>
> Jani
>

"Flower of romance"  wrote in message 
news:9zV4k.165012$UP6.29441@newsfe14.ams2...
>
> "Jani"  wrote in message 
> news:g3100v$6gs$1@energise.enta.net...
>>
>> "Flower of romance"  wrote in message 
>> news:4%Z2k.87838$SA7.84042@newsfe09.ams2...
>>>
>>> "Jani"  wrote in message 
>>> news:g2h6r1$2llr$1@energise.enta.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Flower of romance"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:BZL2k.96916$_c7.26485@newsfe16.ams2...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Jani"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:g2eeng$qjq$1@energise.enta.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Flower of romance"  wrote in message 
>>>>>> news:XcQ1k.133357$UP6.100476@newsfe14.ams2...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Halla"  wrote in message 
>>>>>>> news:8t8f44pltsppj7q32fd6j67ju5hk6itena@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 01:49:42 +0100, "Flower of romance"
>>>>>>>>  blethered:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"trin"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:46abb4a9-cb96-4ac5-90a4-93d439c26b06@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>>> Flower of romance wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Westlandbt wrote
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> > Website
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Another one?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oi, Fuckwit of ringpiece. Stop cross-posting spam.
>>>>>>>>>I'm assuming you were responding to Westlandbt, who actually posted 
>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>article.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You left the crossposts in on your reply.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is that what Trin was harping about? It was hard to tell.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many ISPs delete spam before it appears on the newsgroup.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm aware of that, Jani but the lines of spam on newsgroups are fuzzy.
>>>>
>>>> Is there any indication that the post you replied to was anything other 
>>>> than an unsolicited advertisement? Or that replying to the OP would 
>>>> result in informative, entertaining or meaningful dialogue of interest 
>>>> to URP posters?
>>>
>>> Very little on newsgroups is solicited content; hence my previous point.
>>
>> There is a difference between a post which is on-topic and intended to 
>> elicit meaningful replies, and one which is unsolicited, irrelevant and 
>> crossposted.
>
> As I said, most posts are unsolicited and as for irrelevent, I can see 
> many irrelevent ones on this group and they do no harm whatsoever.

They're relevant to an existing thread, or to the interests of the posters.


As for
> crossposted, Is there any particular reason why you object to crossposting 
> or are you just following the herd? After all it's not really your 
> business what other groups a person chooses to post. A crosspost just 
> links anyway, it doesn't copy the entire post over the groups.

A crosspost is the same post, appearing on more than one group, with 
follow-ups set to all of those groups. I have no objection to crossposts 
where the topic is appropriate to all the groups concerned; that's what 
crossposts are *for*.

>>
>>
>>>>>>The first time the ng posters see it is when some idiot replies to it, 
>>>>>>and so undermines all the good work the ISPs are doing by removing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good work? Jani, the best spam filters in the world occasionally 
>>>>> misfire an delete a perfectl good post.
>>>>
>>>> What does that have to do with my point?
>>>
>>> It has plenty to do with mine.
>>
>> Your point being that non-spam posts are sometimes deleted in error, 
>> which doesn't have anything to do with spam being removed by the ISP, and 
>> a respondent bringing it into the group knowing it's spam.
>
> No. My point is that what is spam and what isn't is based mostly on 
> opinion especially in public places such as newsgroups,   and opinions 
> differ greatly.

Since no-one has come along to say how much they appreciate your drawing 
attention to a post mostly removed by various spam-filters, opinion 
*doesn't* differ in this case.

>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>If you really want to reply to spammers, do so on the ng it appears 
>>>>>>on, and *remove the crossposts* to other groups who didn't get it in 
>>>>>>the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jani. I don't reply to what I see as spam.
>>>>
>>>> What, exactly, in the original post gave you the idea that it was not 
>>>> spam?
>>>
>>> What an odd question. The aboove should answer the question, or not.
>>
>> It's not an odd question at all. Why did you think the original post was 
>> not spam?

> The question has already been answered. Do you have a problem with the 
> indivdual's right to his or her opinion?

Of course not. I'm simply asking why, in *your opinion*, you thought the 
original post wasn't spam. You don't seem capable of answering that.


>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And as for crossposts. If they
>>>>> weren't allowed then those all so helpful ISPs would remove the 
>>>>> crossposting.
>>>>
>>>> And what do you think the purpose of crossposting is? It *does* have a 
>>>> positive function, but that function is not spreading spam.
>>>
>>> Why do you think news hosts allow it if it's a bad thing and yet block 
>>> "spam"?
>>
>> I didn't say it was a "bad thing". In fact, I said quite clearly that it 
>> does have a purpose. Now, as I asked, do you *know* what that purpose is?
>
> It doesn't have a purpose. People have a purpose.

Oh, you're back on the tack of giving nonsensical responses to waste time 
and bandwidth. Pity, I thought you might have got a clue by now.

Jani

"Jani"  wrote in message 
news:g39a60$2puf$1@energise.enta.net...
>
> "Flower of romance"  wrote in message 
> news:9zV4k.165012$UP6.29441@newsfe14.ams2...
>>
>> "Jani"  wrote in message 
>> news:g3100v$6gs$1@energise.enta.net...
>>>
>>> "Flower of romance"  wrote in message 
>>> news:4%Z2k.87838$SA7.84042@newsfe09.ams2...
>>>>
>>>> "Jani"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:g2h6r1$2llr$1@energise.enta.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Flower of romance"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:BZL2k.96916$_c7.26485@newsfe16.ams2...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Jani"  wrote in message 
>>>>>> news:g2eeng$qjq$1@energise.enta.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Flower of romance"  wrote in message 
>>>>>>> news:XcQ1k.133357$UP6.100476@newsfe14.ams2...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Halla"  wrote in message 
>>>>>>>> news:8t8f44pltsppj7q32fd6j67ju5hk6itena@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 01:49:42 +0100, "Flower of romance"
>>>>>>>>>  blethered:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"trin"  wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>news:46abb4a9-cb96-4ac5-90a4-93d439c26b06@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> Flower of romance wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Westlandbt wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> > Website
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Another one?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Oi, Fuckwit of ringpiece. Stop cross-posting spam.
>>>>>>>>>>I'm assuming you were responding to Westlandbt, who actually 
>>>>>>>>>>posted the
>>>>>>>>>>article.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You left the crossposts in on your reply.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is that what Trin was harping about? It was hard to tell.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many ISPs delete spam before it appears on the newsgroup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm aware of that, Jani but the lines of spam on newsgroups are 
>>>>>> fuzzy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any indication that the post you replied to was anything 
>>>>> other than an unsolicited advertisement? Or that replying to the OP 
>>>>> would result in informative, entertaining or meaningful dialogue of 
>>>>> interest to URP posters?
>>>>
>>>> Very little on newsgroups is solicited content; hence my previous 
>>>> point.
>>>
>>> There is a difference between a post which is on-topic and intended to 
>>> elicit meaningful replies, and one which is unsolicited, irrelevant and 
>>> crossposted.
>>
>> As I said, most posts are unsolicited and as for irrelevent, I can see 
>> many irrelevent ones on this group and they do no harm whatsoever.
>
> They're relevant to an existing thread, or to the interests of the 
> posters.

That's subjective.

>
>
> As for
>> crossposted, Is there any particular reason why you object to 
>> crossposting or are you just following the herd? After all it's not 
>> really your business what other groups a person chooses to post. A 
>> crosspost just links anyway, it doesn't copy the entire post over the 
>> groups.
>
> A crosspost is the same post, appearing on more than one group, with 
> follow-ups set to all of those groups. I have no objection to crossposts 
> where the topic is appropriate to all the groups concerned; that's what 
> crossposts are *for*.

And who are you to tell other people what is appropriate?
Again subjective.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>The first time the ng posters see it is when some idiot replies to 
>>>>>>>it, and so undermines all the good work the ISPs are doing by 
>>>>>>>removing it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good work? Jani, the best spam filters in the world occasionally 
>>>>>> misfire an delete a perfectl good post.
>>>>>
>>>>> What does that have to do with my point?
>>>>
>>>> It has plenty to do with mine.
>>>
>>> Your point being that non-spam posts are sometimes deleted in error, 
>>> which doesn't have anything to do with spam being removed by the ISP, 
>>> and a respondent bringing it into the group knowing it's spam.
>>
>> No. My point is that what is spam and what isn't is based mostly on 
>> opinion especially in public places such as newsgroups,   and opinions 
>> differ greatly.
>
> Since no-one has come along to say how much they appreciate your drawing 
> attention to a post mostly removed by various spam-filters, opinion 
> *doesn't* differ in this case.

There you go again, speaking for other people. Opinion always differs where 
there is a  mixture of people.

>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If you really want to reply to spammers, do so on the ng it appears 
>>>>>>>on, and *remove the crossposts* to other groups who didn't get it in 
>>>>>>>the first place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jani. I don't reply to what I see as spam.
>>>>>
>>>>> What, exactly, in the original post gave you the idea that it was not 
>>>>> spam?
>>>>
>>>> What an odd question. The aboove should answer the question, or not.
>>>
>>> It's not an odd question at all. Why did you think the original post was 
>>> not spam?
>
>> The question has already been answered. Do you have a problem with the 
>> indivdual's right to his or her opinion?
>
> Of course not. I'm simply asking why, in *your opinion*, you thought the 
> original post wasn't spam. You don't seem capable of answering that.

I've already asnwered it.
>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And as for crossposts. If they
>>>>>> weren't allowed then those all so helpful ISPs would remove the 
>>>>>> crossposting.
>>>>>
>>>>> And what do you think the purpose of crossposting is? It *does* have a 
>>>>> positive function, but that function is not spreading spam.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you think news hosts allow it if it's a bad thing and yet block 
>>>> "spam"?
>>>
>>> I didn't say it was a "bad thing". In fact, I said quite clearly that it 
>>> does have a purpose. Now, as I asked, do you *know* what that purpose 
>>> is?
>>
>> It doesn't have a purpose. People have a purpose.
>
> Oh, you're back on the tack of giving nonsensical responses to waste time 
> and bandwidth. Pity, I thought you might have got a clue by now.

The answer isn't nonsense. You just don't understand it and of course as you 
seem to think you control the opinions of the masses that you comprehension 
is absolute. esides. I don't waste your bandwidth. You chose to read the 
message so you wasted your own bandwidth. You are free to killfile me just 
as I am free to killfile you.


>
> Jani
>

On 17 Jun, 22:26, "Jani"  wrote:

> Oh, you're back on the tack of giving nonsensical responses to waste time
> and bandwidth. Pity, I thought you might have got a clue by now.

"Fuckwit of Ringpiece" and "have a clue" are two phrases I never
expect to see in the same sentence.

--
trin

"Flower of romance"  wrote in message 
news:Bn56k.6320$aE7.4182@newsfe16.ams2...
>
> "Jani"  wrote in message 
> news:g39a60$2puf$1@energise.enta.net...
>>
>> "Flower of romance"  wrote in message 
>> news:9zV4k.165012$UP6.29441@newsfe14.ams2...


>>>>>>>> Many ISPs delete spam before it appears on the newsgroup.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm aware of that, Jani but the lines of spam on newsgroups are 
>>>>>>> fuzzy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there any indication that the post you replied to was anything 
>>>>>> other than an unsolicited advertisement? Or that replying to the OP 
>>>>>> would result in informative, entertaining or meaningful dialogue of 
>>>>>> interest to URP posters?
>>>>>
>>>>> Very little on newsgroups is solicited content; hence my previous 
>>>>> point.
>>>>
>>>> There is a difference between a post which is on-topic and intended to 
>>>> elicit meaningful replies, and one which is unsolicited, irrelevant and 
>>>> crossposted.
>>>
>>> As I said, most posts are unsolicited and as for irrelevent, I can see 
>>> many irrelevent ones on this group and they do no harm whatsoever.
>>
>> They're relevant to an existing thread, or to the interests of the 
>> posters.
>
> That's subjective.

Well, no, it's an observation of how the ng functions.


>>
>>
>> As for
>>> crossposted, Is there any particular reason why you object to 
>>> crossposting or are you just following the herd? After all it's not 
>>> really your business what other groups a person chooses to post. A 
>>> crosspost just links anyway, it doesn't copy the entire post over the 
>>> groups.
>>
>> A crosspost is the same post, appearing on more than one group, with 
>> follow-ups set to all of those groups. I have no objection to crossposts 
>> where the topic is appropriate to all the groups concerned; that's what 
>> crossposts are *for*.
>
> And who are you to tell other people what is appropriate?
> Again subjective.

I'm not "telling" anyone anything: that's the recognised Usenet definition 
of a valid crosspost.

>>>>>>>>The first time the ng posters see it is when some idiot replies to 
>>>>>>>>it, and so undermines all the good work the ISPs are doing by 
>>>>>>>>removing it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good work? Jani, the best spam filters in the world occasionally 
>>>>>>> misfire an delete a perfectl good post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does that have to do with my point?
>>>>>
>>>>> It has plenty to do with mine.
>>>>
>>>> Your point being that non-spam posts are sometimes deleted in error, 
>>>> which doesn't have anything to do with spam being removed by the ISP, 
>>>> and a respondent bringing it into the group knowing it's spam.
>>>
>>> No. My point is that what is spam and what isn't is based mostly on 
>>> opinion especially in public places such as newsgroups,   and opinions 
>>> differ greatly.
>>
>> Since no-one has come along to say how much they appreciate your drawing 
>> attention to a post mostly removed by various spam-filters, opinion 
>> *doesn't* differ in this case.
>
> There you go again, speaking for other people. Opinion always differs 
> where there is a  mixture of people.

So, the fact that no-one is supporting you means that you're right?


>>>>>>>>If you really want to reply to spammers, do so on the ng it appears 
>>>>>>>>on, and *remove the crossposts* to other groups who didn't get it in 
>>>>>>>>the first place.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jani. I don't reply to what I see as spam.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What, exactly, in the original post gave you the idea that it was not 
>>>>>> spam?
>>>>>
>>>>> What an odd question. The aboove should answer the question, or not.
>>>>
>>>> It's not an odd question at all. Why did you think the original post 
>>>> was not spam?
>>
>>> The question has already been answered. Do you have a problem with the 
>>> indivdual's right to his or her opinion?
>>
>> Of course not. I'm simply asking why, in *your opinion*, you thought the 
>> original post wasn't spam. You don't seem capable of answering that.
>
> I've already asnwered it.

Maybe you should go and check your sents folder. Hint - what you think you 
posted may not correspond with what you actually *did* post.


>>>>>> And as for crossposts. If they
>>>>>>> weren't allowed then those all so helpful ISPs would remove the 
>>>>>>> crossposting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what do you think the purpose of crossposting is? It *does* have 
>>>>>> a positive function, but that function is not spreading spam.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you think news hosts allow it if it's a bad thing and yet block 
>>>>> "spam"?
>>>>
>>>> I didn't say it was a "bad thing". In fact, I said quite clearly that 
>>>> it does have a purpose. Now, as I asked, do you *know* what that 
>>>> purpose is?
>>>
>>> It doesn't have a purpose. People have a purpose.
>>
>> Oh, you're back on the tack of giving nonsensical responses to waste time 
>> and bandwidth. Pity, I thought you might have got a clue by now.
>
> The answer isn't nonsense. You just don't understand it and of course as 
> you seem to think you control the opinions of the masses that you 
> comprehension is absolute.

Wow. I explain the purpose of crossposting and of ISP spam filters to you, 
and suddenly I'm controlling the opinions of the masses? You ought to inform 
the government; they'll be pleased to know how little it takes ...

>esides.

esides? Mash and two veg ordered online?

> I don't waste your bandwidth. You chose to read the message so you wasted 
> your own bandwidth. You are free to killfile me just as I am free to 
> killfile you.

Oh, how quickly we go from "what a nice newsgroup" to "so killfile me 
already". Back under your bridge, daft Dazza.

Jani