Path: news.nzbot.com!spool1.sonic-news.com!news-out.sonic-news.com!not.news-service.com!not.alt.net!not.highwinds-media.com!dr4!artnm!sd48!172.24.8.122.MISMATCH!feeder3!feeder.news-service.com!newsfeed.kpn.net!pfeed08.wxs.nl!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!198.186.194.247.MISMATCH!news-out.readnews.com!transit3.readnews.com!news-out.octanews.net!indigo.octanews.net!auth.brown.octanews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Pixie <Pixie@AnnWheatley.com.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.crafts.pictures
Subject: Re: Disney... it's just spam - Stupid_posting.PNG (0/1)
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:55:36 +1000
Message-ID: <avuko61hoalda3uj7u8sa7a71vd4unnd3h@4ax.com>
References: <4i9mg4.p8h.17.1@news.alt.net>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 53
Organization: Octanews
NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Mar 2011 17:50:06 CDT
X-Complaints-To: abuse@octanews.net
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.binaries.crafts.pictures:18137
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 14:43:46 +0000 (UTC), "Bill" parted the sea and
pee'd on the burning bush before His afternoon nap to share:
/genuflect.... but you're on shaky ground Bill. Your status as a fair
and equitable Usenet Elder just took a dive.
What on earth are you doing in here Bill??
You got a hankering for the smell of sewing machine oil and lavender??
>tin0pener <to@beans.org> wrote:
>
>[...]
>>You concede here the original 'effort' was
>>not a valid post. Not "incomplete" but
>>deliberately posted so as to cause the
>>requestor [No Spam <Me@here.com>]
>>a headache. I call that SPAM... you?
>[...]
>What you consider spam is irrelevant.
>
Because??
Rubbish is rubbish, no matter what hand holding spin you want to put
on it.
Ok, let's not call it SPAM.
Let's call a spade a fucking shovel. 'Scuse French. /hoik spit.
It's CRAP.
Null crap at that. Posted by someone who KNOWS they couldn't post a
letter without instructions tattooed on their hand.
That makes it willful, mindless crap --> SPAM in anyone's language.
>Spam is well defined and the definitions
>newsadmins use is in the message referenced
>below.
>
"This author considers the term "spam" to mean..."
So it's not written on a tablet waiting on a mountain somewhere??
"This author" has never had to sift through gigs of crap posting by
someone who KNEW it was crap posting??
No?
Shit in, shit out. That defines SPAM, Bill.
And you know it...
Six bucks buys a lot of spamming privileges at Altopia... aye, Bill?
Oh... wait... you have such an intelligent clientele... GH, et al.
You having a slow day over in that black hole of a newsgroup that was
once a busy and intelligent source of information??
You used to be interested in a functioning Usenet.
Now you spend your days defending SPAM???
Shame on you Bill.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
|
')){kind=link}