Re: Off Topic - But Heinous

[dbd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (David DeLaney)]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:35:22 -0500, G. Morgan <usenet_abuse@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>Bob <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>You're like kids, each with an icecream, not eating, arguing; and each
>>demanding first lick. :-)
>
>Nope, I just dislike self-appointed Net-cops. I known Joe from his postings for
>years, and felt like he was treated unfairly by "David DeLaney".

He made a mistake. I notice he hasn't come here to apologize. You, however, are
making a much bigger mistake, by being vociferously wrong at length when you
also haven't done the research.

> In my opinion
>he (David) should have said nothing at all instead of classifying Joe's post as
>SPAM (which it clearly is not).

Off-topic post.

> I don't see anyone else calling the OP "SPAM".

The clue here: DIFFERENT NEWSGROUPS HAVE DIFFERENT STANDARDS. You're posting
to one where you don't know the rules. This should mean you lurk a bit and
see if you can figure out some of the rules by observation, right?

>It's a very personal issue for him (and me).

So post to alt.personals.meandmymarinebuddy - sure, it'll have dismal
propagation, but you and he DON'T GET TO BUST INTO OTHER PEOPLE'S THREADS
with stuff that's just plain out of left field.

Your buddy doesn't post here, and neither do you. He spammed an "I think
everyone in these groups should see this! Listen up! This is IMPORTANT! I
SAY SO!" which was exactly as relevant as telling us why our penises really
DESERVE to be longer, or why our spare gold NEEDS to be sent to the following
address. He made a mistake by doing so, but just one. We're making sure he
doesn't do it again. It appears more corrective therapy shall be needed for
you, however.

> Since the two .alt groups he
>posted to don't give a rat's ass about off-topic stuff (I don't read the other
>one),

...okay, so you don't know the rules for TWO of the groups you're posting to.

>I think he should have been given a "pass", rather than being chastised by
>someone who doesn't like what he had to say.

So we give every person on Usenet one "pass" per newsgroup on Usenet? Do you
know how many newsgroups there ARE? (No, you don't.) Of course there are fewer
people on Usenet than there used to be, but there's still enough to make every
single newsgroup unreadable if everyone decided they wanted to post to every
other newsgroup about an issue that was important to them.

(ObSF: The recent thread about people having to cope with increasingly
intrusive advertisements, holographic and otherwise, and the various mechanisms
used to battle them. I don't _remember_ an SF story where "shoot the source of
the advertisement so it explodes" was used, but real life HAS come up with the
TV-zapper, which can turn off almost any TV that can be remote-controlled and
fits in your pocket...)

> Accusing him of going in
>alphabetical order and adding a big-8 group to propagate his message is
>unfounded.

This just shows that you haven't been paying attention. If he's not doing it,
then he shouldn't be mimicking the form of the many many spammers that DO do it.

>That's how things get changed, and
>injustices get righted.

So is this. Think please.

Dave
--
\/David	DeLaney	posting	from dbd@xxxxxxx "It's not the pot that	grows the flower
It's not the clock that	slows the hour 	The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is	all it takes to	make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE	HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.