Re: Off Topic - But Heinous

[Kurt Busiek <kurt@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2010-04-17 19:31:55 -0700, JoeRaisin <joeraisin2001@xxxxxxxxx> said:

> David DeLaney wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Nothing to apologize for.  I've lurked in the SF ng for quite a while
> and there is not a zero-tolerance for off topic.

If you'd been paying attention, you'd have noticed that there's
considerable tolerance for regulars going off-topic, because they
contribute on-topic, too.  People who don't contribute on-topic and
then pop up with off-topic spam, though, much lower tolerance level.

> LOL - I made one post to three ng's.  A post that could have been
> easily ignored and allowed to wither away, never to be heard from again.

Ah, the classic spammer defense. "You could just ignore it!"

Or you could discourage it.  The experience here is that discouraging
works better.

> Sorry to have pissed in your Wheaties.

Sure you are.  That's why you're defending it.

kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com â?? for all your Busiek needs!