While reading this newsgroup, I looked at the first message in each
thread (there were 54 threads containing new messages).

Of those 30 of them were spam, 100% of these came from Google Groups.
There were 24 non-spam threads, 15 of those (63%) did not come from
Google Groups.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"So far as I can remember, there is not one word
in the Gospels in praise of intelligence."
--Bertrand Russell

Mark Lloyd wrote:
While reading this newsgroup, I looked at the first message in each
thread (there were 54 threads containing new messages).

Of those 30 of them were spam, 100% of these came from Google Groups.
There were 24 non-spam threads, 15 of those (63%) did not come from
Google Groups.

I post sometimes through google but I think g.mail, while from google,
is just used to mask identity. My posts there do not come up as g.mail.
Spammers come here because this is a popular group.

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:45:35 -0400, Frank
frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote:

Mark Lloyd wrote:
While reading this newsgroup, I looked at the first message in each
thread (there were 54 threads containing new messages).

Of those 30 of them were spam, 100% of these came from Google Groups.
There were 24 non-spam threads, 15 of those (63%) did not come from
Google Groups.

I post sometimes through google but I think g.mail, while from google,
is just used to mask identity. My posts there do not come up as g.mail.
Spammers come here because this is a popular group.

My testing, above, had nothing to do with a gmail address. I looked
for the header that says:

User-Agent: G2/1.0
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"So far as I can remember, there is not one word
in the Gospels in praise of intelligence."
--Bertrand Russell

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:22:02 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:33:01 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote:


While reading this newsgroup, I looked at the first message in each
thread (there were 54 threads containing new messages).

Of those 30 of them were spam, 100% of these came from Google Groups.
There were 24 non-spam threads, 15 of those (63%) did not come from
Google Groups.

I think google as a whole, is responsible for at least half the spam
on the net. When I stopped surfing with google and was careful not to
be logged onto a google affilliated company (like aol) my email spam
dropped by more than 50% ... in spite of the fact that I use my real
Email address everywhere.
If you see a google logo on your screen when you are surfing, you will
get spam about everything you search on.
Turning off cookies made my spam drop another 50% or more


I never enable cookies or scripts when on a Google website.

If I am getting spam from my usenet posts it is a very small number
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"So far as I can remember, there is not one word
in the Gospels in praise of intelligence."
--Bertrand Russell

On Mar 11, 4:36 am, wrote:

What gets me, is that I have never heard anyone who reads the spam.
So what's the point of posting it in the first place?

In normal advertising and sales circles, a direct salesman facing a
customer might get a 1 in 4 or 1 in 10 return, a direct mail marketer
might get 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000, a spammer might get 1 in 10, 000.
Since a spammer's costs are essentially zero per message it makes
sense for them.

R

On Mar 10, 6:04 pm, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:45:35 -0400, Frank
frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote:
Mark Lloyd wrote:

While reading this newsgroup, I looked at the first message in each
thread (there were 54 threads containing new messages).

Of those 30 of them were spam, 100% of these came from Google Groups.
There were 24 non-spam threads, 15 of those (63%) did not come from
Google Groups.

I post sometimes through google but I think g.mail, while from google,
is just used to mask identity. My posts there do not come up as g.mail.
Spammers come here because this is a popular group.

My testing, above, had nothing to do with a gmail address. I looked
for the header that says:

User-Agent: G2/1.0

Maybe we should just shoot them...?

R

On Mar 10, 2:33 pm, Mark Lloyd wrote:

"So far as I can remember, there is not one word
in the Gospels in praise of intelligence."
--Bertrand Russell

A very quotable sig, but there is a difference between intelligence
and wisdom - wisdom is highly preferred. I know plenty of intelligent
people who are stupid, and I don't know a single wise person that is
stupid.

R

In article
,
RicodJour wrote:

I know plenty of intelligent
people who are stupid, and I don't know a single wise person that is
stupid.

The second part of this sentence implies that stupid is the opposite of
intelligent, and is unrelated to wisdom. The first part contradicts the
idea that stupid is the opposite of intelligent, and implies that it is
the opposite of wise.

What did you mean to say?

On Mar 11, 11:03 am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,

RicodJour wrote:
I know plenty of intelligent
people who are stupid, and I don't know a single wise person that is
stupid.

The second part of this sentence implies that stupid is the opposite of
intelligent, and is unrelated to wisdom. The first part contradicts the
idea that stupid is the opposite of intelligent, and implies that it is
the opposite of wise.

What did you mean to say?

I meant exactly what I wrote, but I'll be happy to clarify it for
you. You're inferring that I meant there is no correlation between
intelligence and wisdom, but I certainly did not imply it. There are
many types of intelligence, purportedly seven, but most often some
sort of test-taking is the barometer of intelligence.

All doctors and lawyers are intelligent or they'd never have
graduated, and that puts them in the upper levels of 'intelligence'.
Some of the stupidest people I know are doctors and lawyers. Eliot
Spitzer is a very intelligent man - he is not a wise man, and in fact
is fairly stupid. Is that any clearer?

R

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 02:36:51 -0600, wrote:

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:33:01 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote:


While reading this newsgroup, I looked at the first message in each
thread (there were 54 threads containing new messages).

Of those 30 of them were spam, 100% of these came from Google Groups.
There were 24 non-spam threads, 15 of those (63%) did not come from
Google Groups.

What gets me, is that I have never heard anyone who reads the spam.
So what's the point of posting it in the first place?

I suppose a FEW people read it. Maybe those don't want to admit that.
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"So far as I can remember, there is not one word
in the Gospels in praise of intelligence."
--Bertrand Russell

On Mar 11, 7:36 am, RicodJour wrote:
On Mar 11, 4:36 am, wrote:



What gets me, is that I have never heard anyone who reads the spam.
So what's the point of posting it in the first place?

In normal advertising and sales circles, a direct salesman facing a
customer might get a 1 in 4 or 1 in 10 return, a direct mail marketer
might get 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000, a spammer might get 1 in 10, 000.
Since a spammer's costs are essentially zero per message it makes
sense for them.

R

Unfortunately R's correct about "spammer arithmetic"

their costs are so low that even a few hits are worth it......just
like junk snail mail.

If email providers charged for email (let say over some reasonable per
day) spam "might" be reduced.

Few or low cost resources tend to be over consumed.

cheers
Bob

On Mar 11, 8:03 am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,

RicodJour wrote:
I know plenty of intelligent
people who are stupid, and I don't know a single wise person that is
stupid.

The second part of this sentence implies that stupid is the opposite of
intelligent, and is unrelated to wisdom. The first part contradicts the
idea that stupid is the opposite of intelligent, and implies that it is
the opposite of wise.

What did you mean to say?

What did you mean to say?



seemed pretty clear to me & it has been my experience when dealing
with stupid, wise & intelligent people.

cheers
Bob

On Mar 11, 8:21 am, RicodJour wrote:
On Mar 11, 11:03 am, Smitty Two wrote:

In article
,

RicodJour wrote:
I know plenty of intelligent
people who are stupid, and I don't know a single wise person that is
stupid.

The second part of this sentence implies that stupid is the opposite of
intelligent, and is unrelated to wisdom. The first part contradicts the
idea that stupid is the opposite of intelligent, and implies that it is
the opposite of wise.

What did you mean to say?

I meant exactly what I wrote, but I'll be happy to clarify it for
you. You're inferring that I meant there is no correlation between
intelligence and wisdom, but I certainly did not imply it. There are
many types of intelligence, purportedly seven, but most often some
sort of test-taking is the barometer of intelligence.

All doctors and lawyers are intelligent or they'd never have
graduated, and that puts them in the upper levels of 'intelligence'.
Some of the stupidest people I know are doctors and lawyers. Eliot
Spitzer is a very intelligent man - he is not a wise man, and in fact
is fairly stupid. Is that any clearer?

R

R-


Spitzer is a very intelligent man - he is not a wise man, and in fact is fairly stupid.

At least now he can serve as a excellent "bad example".

Too bad the law, in his case, be unequally applied...his resignation
will serve as his punishment.

If he was a "regular"guy or a high profile businessman, some eager
federal prosecutor would go after him on federal charges.

How poetic would that have been?

cheers
Bob

wrote:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:33:01 -0500, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

While reading this newsgroup, I looked at the first message in each
thread (there were 54 threads containing new messages).

Of those 30 of them were spam, 100% of these came from Google Groups.
There were 24 non-spam threads, 15 of those (63%) did not come from
Google Groups.

What gets me, is that I have never heard anyone who reads the spam.
So what's the point of posting it in the first place?

Since everyone else except the spammers pay for spam it makes sense to
do it because it only takes a small response to make a lot of money.
Other marketers would give up because there are tangible costs to
sending mailers/buying print and electronic ads etc.

BobK207 wrote:
On Mar 11, 7:36 am, RicodJour wrote:
On Mar 11, 4:36 am, wrote:



What gets me, is that I have never heard anyone who reads the spam.
So what's the point of posting it in the first place?

In normal advertising and sales circles, a direct salesman facing a
customer might get a 1 in 4 or 1 in 10 return, a direct mail marketer
might get 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000, a spammer might get 1 in 10, 000.
Since a spammer's costs are essentially zero per message it makes
sense for them.

R

Unfortunately R's correct about "spammer arithmetic"

their costs are so low that even a few hits are worth it......just
like junk snail mail.

If email providers charged for email (let say over some reasonable per
day) spam "might" be reduced.

Few or low cost resources tend to be over consumed.


Sadly, I have to concur. They're latching on to an equivalent elsewhere, as
well.

In article
,
RicodJour wrote:

On Mar 11, 11:03 am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,

RicodJour wrote:
I know plenty of intelligent
people who are stupid, and I don't know a single wise person that is
stupid.

The second part of this sentence implies that stupid is the opposite of
intelligent, and is unrelated to wisdom. The first part contradicts the
idea that stupid is the opposite of intelligent, and implies that it is
the opposite of wise.

What did you mean to say?

I meant exactly what I wrote, but I'll be happy to clarify it for
you. You're inferring that I meant there is no correlation between
intelligence and wisdom, but I certainly did not imply it. There are
many types of intelligence, purportedly seven, but most often some
sort of test-taking is the barometer of intelligence.

All doctors and lawyers are intelligent or they'd never have
graduated, and that puts them in the upper levels of 'intelligence'.
Some of the stupidest people I know are doctors and lawyers. Eliot
Spitzer is a very intelligent man - he is not a wise man, and in fact
is fairly stupid. Is that any clearer?

R

Is it any clearer? No, it isn't. But thanks for the effort.