On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:08:57 +0000 (UTC), "Bill" wrote:
>Pixie <Pixie@AnnWheatley.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>"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.
>
>Calling useless bytes spam doesn't make it spam.
>
Potatoes/potartoes, Bill.
A scentless rose by any other name....is just another useless prick.
>Newsadmins follow the spam FAQ and you should too,
>if you expect complaints to have any affect at all.
>
I don't write to Admins who support spam.
>What you think of me is irrelevant to the point
>I'm trying to make.
>
Now I've hurt your feelings.
Spam is the abuse of electronic messaging systems. That would be any
messaging system.
Spam is also a canned meat made largely from pork (and not the nice
bits).
Putting a bow on it and calling it Porky, does not suddenly make it
gigs of usable data.
Wilful, rubbish posts ARE spam.
Your "point" if you have one, is moot.
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
|
')){kind=link}