|
NEWSGROUP "SPAM" - No Such Thing. Newsgroups are public.
NEWSGROUP "SPAM" - No Such Thing. Newsgroups are public.
What is "SPAM"? Unsolicited messages? Then everyone that post to a newsgroups is "spamming" unless they are responding to a direct question. What is Off Topic? Anything that isn't relevant to the group description? Then 99% of newsgroup posters are spammers. You've never posted an off topic comment? You can't lie. It's archived in Google. Links to websites are spam? Then what are those links in your signature? OH....it's ok to "SPAM" a little bit. As a matter of fact its ok to "SPAM" a lot because you include those links in your signature everytime you post. If you want a MODERATED group. Shut the hell up and go join one or create one yourself. NEWSGROUPS ARE PUBLIC. |
NEWSGROUP "SPAM" - No Such Thing. Newsgroups are public.
And you sir are a TROLL....
and I sir, am a Top Poster! ;-] wrote in message oups.com... NEWSGROUP "SPAM" - No Such Thing. Newsgroups are public. What is "SPAM"? Unsolicited messages? Then everyone that post to a newsgroups is "spamming" unless they are responding to a direct question. What is Off Topic? Anything that isn't relevant to the group description? Then 99% of newsgroup posters are spammers. You've never posted an off topic comment? You can't lie. It's archived in Google. Links to websites are spam? Then what are those links in your signature? OH....it's ok to "SPAM" a little bit. As a matter of fact its ok to "SPAM" a lot because you include those links in your signature everytime you post. If you want a MODERATED group. Shut the hell up and go join one or create one yourself. NEWSGROUPS ARE PUBLIC. |
NEWSGROUP "SPAM" - No Such Thing. Newsgroups are public.
Off our meds today? Just feeling cranky? No respect?
Get over it, and go away. Quietly, please. J wrote: NEWSGROUP "SPAM" - No Such Thing. Newsgroups are public. |
NEWSGROUP "SPAM" - No Such Thing. Newsgroups are public.
wrote in message oups.com... NEWSGROUP "SPAM" - No Such Thing. Newsgroups are public. What is "SPAM"? Unsolicited messages? Then everyone that post to a newsgroups is "spamming" unless they are responding to a direct question. What is Off Topic? Anything that isn't relevant to the group description? Then 99% of newsgroup posters are spammers. You've never posted an off topic comment? You can't lie. It's archived in Google. Links to websites are spam? Then what are those links in your signature? OH....it's ok to "SPAM" a little bit. As a matter of fact its ok to "SPAM" a lot because you include those links in your signature everytime you post. If you want a MODERATED group. Shut the hell up and go join one or create one yourself. NEWSGROUPS ARE PUBLIC. Then, just do as you will. Morons usually just get killfiled, but then there are enough newbies and clueless to keep the trolls going. And then there is the TOS violation letter to the ISP. I have personally had many people's accounts shut down by just sending a copy of their drivel to and suggest that they Google the person and see what they have filed. Most of the time it is a home alone juvenile posting on parent's computer. Yes, newsgroups are public, just like talking no the street is okay. But, just like talking on the street, people have the right to choose which people they talk to and which conversations they enter into. But, alas, sometimes they lack the sense to do so. HTH, but I doubt it. STeve |
NEWSGROUP "SPAM" - No Such Thing. Newsgroups are public.
"Dr. Hardcrab" wrote in message news:c9b7f.3346$HW5.128@trnddc04... And you sir are a TROLL.... and I sir, am a Top Poster! ;-] This is Turtle. OH My LORD , You have cross the line here and will have to pay the price. Anybody who is a top poster has to tomorrow morning get up and wash your face and then slap yourself 3 time across the face and tell no one about it. This will prevent you from being a regular top poster but makes you a part time top poster. TURTLE |
NEWSGROUP "SPAM" - No Such Thing. Newsgroups are public.
"TURTLE" wrote in message ... "Dr. Hardcrab" wrote in message news:c9b7f.3346$HW5.128@trnddc04... And you sir are a TROLL.... and I sir, am a Top Poster! ;-] This is Turtle. OH My LORD , You have cross the line here and will have to pay the price. Anybody who is a top poster has to tomorrow morning get up and wash your face and then slap yourself 3 time across the face and tell no one about it. This will prevent you from being a regular top poster but makes you a part time top poster. THANK YOU SIR MAY I have another??!!!! ;-] |
Well, you sure convinced me! Please, spam away. Idiot.
Fortunately, your efforts are doomed to fail.
Usenet convention defines spamming as excessive multiple posting, that is, the repeated posting of a message (or substantially similar messages). During the early 1990s there was substantial controversy among Usenet system administrators (news admins) over the use of cancel messages to control spam. A wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel+message" title="cancel message" class="new" target="+blank" cancel message is a directive to news servers to delete a posting, causing it to be inaccessible to those who might read it. Some regarded this as a bad precedent, leaning towards censorship, while others considered it a proper use of the available tools to control the growing spam problem. A culture of neutrality towards content precluded defining spam on the basis of advertisement or commercial solicitations. The word "spam" was usually taken to mean excessive multiple posting (EMP), and other neologisms were coined for other abuses - such as "velveeta" (from the processed cheese product) for excessive cross-posting. www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/V/velveeta.html" title="http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/V/velveeta.html" http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/V/velveeta.html A subset of spam was deemed cancellable spam, for which it is considered justified to issue third-party cancel messages. www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/spam-faq/" title="http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/spam-faq/" http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/spam-faq/ In the late 1990s, spam became used as a means of vandalising newsgroups, with malicious users committing acts of sporgery to make targeted newsgroups all but unreadable without heavily filtering. A prominent example occurred in alt.religion.scientology. Another known example is the Meow Wars. The prevalence of Usenet spam led to the development of the Breidbart Index as an objective measure of a message's "spamminess". The use of the BI and spam-detection software has led to Usenet being policed by anti-spam volunteers, who purge newsgroups of spam by sending cancels and filtering it out on the way into servers. This very active form of policing has meant that Usenet is a far less attractive target to spammers than it used to be, and most of the industrial-scale spammers have now moved into e-mail spam instead. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:20 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter