In message <1147920229.757066.208780@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Reef Fish wrote:
Reef Fish, I wasn't going to answer you, because all you do when
someone quotes references to you is tell them there references are
"Bullshit".
>I have (since Ray Goldenberg's post of May 13, urging TAs and everyone to file >FALSE abuse reports to Google about the present NEW posting account) in 13 >different threads, totalling at least 41 posts, in rec.travel.cruises. Was ANY of them >an "abuse"?
>Did ANYONE think any of them was an "abuse" and hit the abuse button as >Goldenberg urged?
The follow is copied from the NET ABUSE FAQ:
http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html#2.1
2.1) What is Spam?
It's a luncheon meat, kinda pink, comes in a can, made by Hormel.
Most
Americans intuitively, viscerally associate "Spam" with "no nutritive
or
aesthetic value," though it is still relatively popular (especially in
Hawaii) and can be found in almost any grocery store.) The canned
luncheon
meat has its own newsgroup, alt.spam.
The term "spam," as used on this newsgroup, means "the same article (or
essentially the same article) posted an unacceptably high number of
times to
one or more newsgroups." CONTENT IS IRRELEVANT. 'Spam' doesn't mean
"ads." It doesn't mean "abuse." It doesn't mean "posts whose content I
object to." Spam is a funky name for a phenomenon that can be measured
pretty objectively: did
that post appear X times? (See 3.1, "Yeah, but how many is X?')
There have been "customized" spams where each post made some effort
to apply
to each individual newsgroup, but the general thrust of each article
was the
same. A huge straw poll on news.admin.policy, news.admin.misc, and
alt.current-events.net-abuse (December 1994) showed that as many of 90%
of
the readers felt that cancellations for these posts were justified. So,
simply put: if you plan to post the same or extremely similar messages
to
dozens of newsgroups, the posts are probably going to get cancelled.
If you feel that a massive multi-post you are planning constitutes an
exception, you are more than welcome to run the idea past the readers
of
news.admin.net-abuse.usenet for feedback first.
Reef Fish, 41 posts of the same message constitutes SPAM, or net -
abuse. Ads by themselves, of different content do not constitute Net
Abuse.
People on this group do know what net abuse is. You coming in here
claiming that "There are no ads allowed on USENET" is actually a
false statement.
Everyone has repeatedly asked you to provided references to back up you
claims. Your refusal to do so reflects on your Alma Matter, on your
credentials of a Phd, and as you as a person.
Yes, Reef Fish you are a SPAMMER!
roland
|