New Guy wrote
Tony Sivori wrote

Who would have a reason to post this material periodically on usenet?

Just because you may not like it, or it may be off topic,
or that it has been posted before does not make it spam.

A posting is spam if the poster's intent is not to seek an answer to a question,

Wrong. Usenet is about a hell of a lot more than just questions.

or if the poster does not seek (or intend) to start a conversation.

Thats wrong too. There have always been plenty of announcements
in usenet and quite a few individuals just pointing out what they have
just discovered, particularly in the technical newsgroups. Its never
been just about conversations.

This is especially true if the same post is made on a periodic basis,

Wrong again. That doesnt make it spam automatically.

There have always been some individuals that post a list of where
things are up to in a particular field, most obviously with encryption etc.

Thats mainly done to reduce the frequency of common questions being asked.

Thats always been an alternative to a web site doing that.

and mischief is employed in the headers (ie - bogus follow-up group list).

That isnt mischief.

Obviously, periodic posting of newsgroup charters or FAQ's is not spam.

So much for your previous stupid claim.

On Usenet, being BI 20 makes it spam.
The OP is working on it, but he isn't there yet.

I have no idea what any of that means.

Its one way of automating the detection of spam, using that index.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breidbart_Index

That said, I'm not sure why the OP didn't post it to
misc.consumers.frugal-living where it would have been
directly on topic.

Its just as on topic in the ones he posted to.

I have seen these anti-brand-name posts in groups other
than misc.consumers.*, where they are clearly off-topic.

You get to like that or lump it.

My guess was that it is a website article, re-posted to newsgroups
verbatim. After searching Google, that doesn't appear to be the case.

If you feel those posts are justified or above reproach, then so
too is my post asking who would have a motive to post them.

That comment of his is about something completely different,
whether its just posting a web page to usenet or not.

It's an odd topic to develop a posting-fetish over.

Thats what fetishes are. Very odd indeed the bulk of them.

I think it is a decent post, and I agree with most of what it says.

So how often, and in how many groups, is it legit to post it too?

There is no nice tidy number.

There isnt with FAQs or charters either.

I don't give a **** about generic vs brand name.

No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read those posts.

If someone is doing that, call the cops.

I think anyone who's got enough brain cells to be able to read usenet also
knows enough about the differences between generic and brand name stuff.

Doesnt matter a damn what you think. He gets to post anyway.

In fact, what's missing from that post is the nugget of information
that most every consumable product (procesed foods, shampoo, etc) are
made in a handful of mega-plants, and just before they come off the end
of the line they get slapped with various brand-name or generic labels.

That is a lie. The generics that are more than just basic ingredients like say
sugar, are different in detail to the most expensive brand name products.

It's more than just the idea that brand-name is frequently the same
quality as generic - it's that they're often made by the same plant.

But not necessarily with identical ingredients.

If they were, it wouldnt be possible to pick any difference using
double blind trials and that is clearly possible, so there must be
different ingredients with other than the most basic stuff like sugar.

Even flour isnt all identical.

By the way, New Guy, if it were spam you would have done the
spammer an enormous favor by re-posting the spam in its
entirety in your reply.

If it was such an enormous favor, then the spammer could
have simply posted it again today, and again tommorrow, etc.

That wouldnt bypass filters.

But I don't think it was any favor to shine a critical light on his posts,
speculting why he's posting it, his motives, who he might be, etc.

Certainly does to post the ENTIRITY of his original, which those
who had filtered them away would not have seen till you did that.

I'm sure he doesn't appreciate that.

More fool you.

But I don't expect he knows because he doesn't
participate in usenet beyond spamming it.

You have absolutely no idea whether he reads responses to his posts or not.

ALL you know is that he doesnt reply to responses.

The spammer would be filtered on many servers and in many
individuals newsreaders.

The news server that I use does indeed employ one or two some-what
sophisticated and distributed spam-removal mechanisms. But the post
in question obviously was not picked up as spam.

Because it isnt spam.

By re-posting the entire article from your account,
you enabled him to effectively evade all filters.

My intent was to start a conversation about who he might be, and the
motives for his posts. If others did not see his original post
because it was filtered from their server, then my inclusion of his
post serves to provide an example that is necessary to further the
conversation for those people.

Thats wrong too. Just including a few lines from the original would
have made it clear what you were talking about and anyone who
had chosen to filter it away who wanted to check the original could
just go back to the original to see the full original. And those who
had chosen to filter it away would not be stuck with seeing it when
you reposted it in full and had that bypass their filter that they had
deliberately set up so they would not see it again.