Webmaster forum - Please Viper, explain to us what do yuu understand by SPAM

Author

Please Viper, explain to us what do yuu understand by SPAM

1001 Webs

2007-10-24, 6:18 pm

We have received an e-mail from someone who identifies himself as
Viper with Subject:
"Please delete this spammers account"
in reference to our Post named:
"Chinese and Japanese Partners at 1001webs.net "

We would like to kindly ask Viper to please explain in which way our
message can be considered as SPAM.

Thank You.

Red E. Kilowatt

2007-10-24, 6:18 pm

1001 Webs <1001webs@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote in message:
1193237768.760584.320640@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com,

> We have received an e-mail from someone who identifies himself as
> Viper with Subject:
> "Please delete this spammers account"
> in reference to our Post named:
> "Chinese and Japanese Partners at 1001webs.net "
>
> We would like to kindly ask Viper to please explain in which way our
> message can be considered as SPAM.
>
> Thank You.

I'm sure you'll find Viper's answer (if he gives one) to be somewhat
less than satisfying, so allow me to take a stab at answering your
question.

The purpose of this newsgroup is to exchange information about
webmastering, but it is not intended to be a vehicle for soliciting
business or business partners. The group's FAQ does not mention spam
because that is a loaded word for a lot of people that causes a lot of
arguments. Instead, the FAQ refers to unsolicited advertising.

http://www.aww-faq.org
"Ads are not welcome in AWW, whether on-topic or not. In fact, they are
so unwelcome that they are usually reported to the poster's ISP and web
host, etc. by some newsgroup members who really don't like ads. Read the
Advertising in AWW section for a definition of what we consider
unsolicited commercial advertising and likely to get you reported, and
what types of web site promotion are considered appropriate. If all you
want to do is post ads, then go to alt.www.webmaster.ads (AWWA) or some
other newsgroup that has a more ad-tolerant attitude. Please read the
FAQ for AWWA at http://awwa.aww-faq.org/ before you post an ad there."

And further down, under "Advertising in AWW"

"Unsolicited commercial messages of any kind are prohibited, and will
probably be reported to the sender's ISP and web host etc. by one or
more of AWW's regular participants. "Commercial" is defined in The
American Heritage® Dictionary as "Having profit as a chief aim" and
that's an excellent way to define the type of messages we don't want.
You cannot promote your web site, offer to "sell" anything, exchange
links, form partnerships, etc."

--
Red

Blinky the Shark

2007-10-24, 6:18 pm

Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
> 1001 Webs <1001webs@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote in message:
> 1193237768.760584.320640@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com,
>
>
> I'm sure you'll find Viper's answer (if he gives one) to be somewhat
> less than satisfying, so allow me to take a stab at answering your
> question.

That said, how professional -- using Google Gropes to make this request.
I doubt that they're going to be able to understand *any* explanation,
including your dead-on one, below.

> The purpose of this newsgroup is to exchange information about
> webmastering, but it is not intended to be a vehicle for soliciting
> business or business partners. The group's FAQ does not mention spam
> because that is a loaded word for a lot of people that causes a lot of
> arguments. Instead, the FAQ refers to unsolicited advertising.
>
> http://www.aww-faq.org
> "Ads are not welcome in AWW, whether on-topic or not. In fact, they are
> so unwelcome that they are usually reported to the poster's ISP and web
> host, etc. by some newsgroup members who really don't like ads. Read the
> Advertising in AWW section for a definition of what we consider
> unsolicited commercial advertising and likely to get you reported, and
> what types of web site promotion are considered appropriate. If all you
> want to do is post ads, then go to alt.www.webmaster.ads (AWWA) or some
> other newsgroup that has a more ad-tolerant attitude. Please read the
> FAQ for AWWA at http://awwa.aww-faq.org/ before you post an ad there."
>
> And further down, under "Advertising in AWW"
>
> "Unsolicited commercial messages of any kind are prohibited, and will
> probably be reported to the sender's ISP and web host etc. by one or
> more of AWW's regular participants. "Commercial" is defined in The
> American Heritage® Dictionary as "Having profit as a chief aim" and
> that's an excellent way to define the type of messages we don't want.
> You cannot promote your web site, offer to "sell" anything, exchange
> links, form partnerships, etc."

--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org

Red E. Kilowatt

2007-10-24, 6:18 pm

Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote in message:
slrnfhvepu.5l6.no.spam@thurston.blinkynet.net,

> Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
>
> That said, how professional -- using Google Gropes to make this
> request. I doubt that they're going to be able to understand *any*
> explanation, including your dead-on one, below.

Perhaps you're right. And I suspect that regardless they are probably
more interested in using any response they get as another opportunity to
post their url.

--
Red

SpaceGirl

2007-10-24, 10:18 pm

Red E. Kilowatt wrote:

> Perhaps you're right. And I suspect that regardless they are probably
> more interested in using any response they get as another opportunity to
> post their url.
>

Which all of you reposted, apart from Red. Well done :)

--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com

2007-10-24, 10:18 pm

SpaceGirl wrote:
> Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
>
>
> Which all of you reposted, apart from Red. Well done :)

lol

Doug Baiter

2007-10-24, 10:18 pm

On 24 Oct 2007 13:09:09 -0700, 1001 Webs <1001webs@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:

>We have received an e-mail from someone who identifies himself as
>Viper with Subject:
>"Please delete this spammers account"
>in reference to our Post named:
>"Chinese and Japanese Partners at 1001webs.net "
>
>We would like to kindly ask Viper to please explain in which way our
>message can be considered as SPAM.
>
>Thank You.

Viper, aka snakepiss, is a long-term whiny loser. Add him to your
ignore list and you'll find it quieter. Likewise Red E Kilowatt, who
only wants to allow advertising by him and his pals. Red refers to a
'FAQ' which prohibits advertising, but fails to point out that his FAQ
is utterly worthless on several counts, not least of which that he's
an obsessive nutter who writes deranged FAQ's for giggles - take
http://kook.us as a classic example. Then theres the fact that as this
is an alt hierarchy newsgroup, it doesn't have a FAQ. Or even that
when this worthless FAQ was written, the majority of the group voted
to NOT have it in an independent ballot.

Steve Sobol

2007-10-24, 10:18 pm

On 2007-10-24, Doug Baiter <doug-baiter@no.where> wrote:

> Viper, aka snakepiss, is a long-term whiny loser. Add him to your
> ignore list and you'll find it quieter. Likewise Red E Kilowatt, who
> only wants to allow advertising by him and his pals.

Riiiight.

This from some wingnut who comes out of the woodwoork every so often just
to taunt a few of the regulars? :)

Sure, you're pretty credible in my eyes :D

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com

SoCal Fire news at the Los Angeles Times Breaking News Blog:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/breakingnews/

Doug Baiter

2007-10-24, 10:18 pm

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:43:13 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

>On 2007-10-24, Doug Baiter <doug-baiter@no.where> wrote:
>
>
>Riiiight.
>
>This from some wingnut who comes out of the woodwoork every so often just
>to taunt a few of the regulars? :)
>
What *is* this crap about 'regulars'? Have you *all* been tainted with
this mantra that somehow whatever is said by the people you're
referring to as 'regs' is somehow of more import than someone who
posts only occasionally?
Your definition is worthless. I've been posting here non-stop for
more than seven years, yet I'm happy to be a 'wingnut'. Theres posters
who've only been here a relatively short time who have input of value.
So lets dispense with this 'regs' junk, shall we? As for "attacking
the regs", I wont bother arguing my case since you've apparently
already made up your mind. I, on the other hand, prefer a more
*independent" version of history, which is why - unlike those who
oppose me - I'm happy to refer anyone to Google's groups history :o)

Jerry Stuckle

2007-10-25, 3:16 am

Steve Sobol wrote:
> On 2007-10-24, Doug Baiter <doug-baiter@no.where> wrote:
>
>
> Riiiight.
>
> This from some wingnut who comes out of the woodwoork every so often just
> to taunt a few of the regulars? :)
>
> Sure, you're pretty credible in my eyes :D
>
>

Forget it, Steve. He's just a troll.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Viper

2007-10-25, 3:16 am

Doug Baiter wrote:
> Viper, aka snakepiss, is a long-term whiny loser. Add him to your
> ignore list and you'll find it quieter. Likewise Red E Kilowatt, who
> only wants to allow advertising by him and his pals. Red refers to a
> 'FAQ' which prohibits advertising, but fails to point out that his FAQ
> is utterly worthless on several counts, not least of which that he's
> an obsessive nutter who writes deranged FAQ's for giggles - take
> http://kook.us as a classic example. Then theres the fact that as this
> is an alt hierarchy newsgroup, it doesn't have a FAQ. Or even that
> when this worthless FAQ was written, the majority of the group voted
> to NOT have it in an independent ballot.

You keep telling the spammers and n00bs that and Ill keep getting their
accounts nuked. :)

Steve Sobol

2007-10-25, 3:16 am

On 2007-10-24, Doug Baiter <doug-baiter@no.where> wrote:

> What *is* this crap about 'regulars'? Have you *all* been tainted with
> this mantra that somehow whatever is said by the people you're
> referring to as 'regs' is somehow of more import than someone who
> posts only occasionally?

More important? No. Not at all. More believable? Yes.

> Your definition is worthless. I've been posting here non-stop for
> more than seven years

Bullshit.

I've been reading for the past couple years and not seen much of anything
from you at all. You certainly haven't been posting here non-stop. I'll buy
that you've been around for seven years, but not that you are a regular
contributor.

> *independent" version of history, which is why - unlike those who
> oppose me - I'm happy to refer anyone to Google's groups history :o)

*shrug* I personally don't have a problem with that.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com

SoCal Fire news at the Los Angeles Times Breaking News Blog:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/breakingnews/

Steve Sobol

2007-10-25, 3:16 am

On 2007-10-25, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:

> Forget it, Steve. He's just a troll.

Yeah, but he's more intelligent than Viper. I started ignoring Snakey due to
stupidity (his, not mine). At least Doug is somewhat capable of holding a
rational conversation. :D

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com

SoCal Fire news at the Los Angeles Times Breaking News Blog:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/breakingnews/

Secret Agent X

2007-10-25, 6:18 am

Doug Baiter <doug-baiter@no.where> wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:43:13 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
><sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
>
>What *is* this crap about 'regulars'? Have you *all* been tainted with
>this mantra that somehow whatever is said by the people you're
>referring to as 'regs' is somehow of more import than someone who
>posts only occasionally?

Not all, Mike. Not all.

Most of the sensible regulars, who have neither interest in California
forest fires, inappropriate tittle-tattle nor senseless flame wars
have stopped using the group and moved on.

It amazes me that the abuse of Usenet is "okay" and yet a single
commercial, but on topic post, generates hysterical screams for the
poster's accounts to be terminated. But then again, when one looks at
where the hysteria originates, it's not so surprising.

X

Andy Dingley

2007-10-25, 6:18 am

On 24 Oct, 21:09, 1001 Webs <1001w...@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:
> "Please delete this spammers account"
> in reference to our Post named:
> "Chinese and Japanese Partners at 1001webs.net "
[color=darkred]

However in this case, he's quite right. Your postings are
unsolicited, irrelevant, against-charter pure-and-simple-spam.

How do you justify you dating site spam as in any way _not_ being spam?

Doug Baiter

2007-10-25, 6:18 am

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 05:46:51 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

>On 2007-10-24, Doug Baiter <doug-baiter@no.where> wrote:
>
>
>More important? No. Not at all. More believable? Yes.
>
>
>Bullshit.
>
>I've been reading for the past couple years and not seen much of anything
>from you at all. You certainly haven't been posting here non-stop. I'll buy
>that you've been around for seven years, but not that you are a regular
>contributor.
>
Well, perhaps 'regular' is stretching it a little. At a guess I'd be
posting maybe 10 a month during that time, excluding 'nullified' and
this new temp username.

Doug Baiter

2007-10-25, 6:18 am

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 05:48:10 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

>On 2007-10-25, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>Yeah, but he's more intelligent than Viper. I started ignoring Snakey due to
>stupidity (his, not mine). At least Doug is somewhat capable of holding a
>rational conversation. :D

Jerry, like Red, would prefer it immensely if you would not respond to
any posts from me - they're both on record as imagining it somehow
'empowers' or 'rewards' me, and they think that if only there was a
*blanket* policy of ignoring me, perhaps I might go away. Its not
worked previously, but they live in hope :o)
At least I've moved up the evolutionary ladder a few steps in Jerrys
eyes - I've now graduated to 'troll' from 'spammer'!

Andy Dingley

2007-10-25, 6:22 pm

On 25 Oct, 10:09, Andy Dingley <ding...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> How do you justify you dating site spam as in any way _not_ being spam?

My most sincere apologies! I'd mis-read your subject line and killed
the post as dating-site spam before I'd read the content.

It's a relevant post to the newsgroup. You didn't spam on the basis of
volume either (AFAICS) so there's no reason to regard it as spam.
Viper has a hair-trigger and regards _anything_ as spam, even if it's
useful to the community as a whole. I think he'd only be happy if
there was nothing posted except his own ego.

I would suggest in all modesty though, that a bit more editing in your
future subject lines might make them less ambiguous and prone to mis-
interpretation 8-)

Once again, my apologies for reacting too hastily.

Jerry Stuckle

2007-10-25, 6:22 pm

Andy Dingley wrote:
> On 25 Oct, 10:09, Andy Dingley <ding...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
>
> My most sincere apologies! I'd mis-read your subject line and killed
> the post as dating-site spam before I'd read the content.
>
> It's a relevant post to the newsgroup. You didn't spam on the basis of
> volume either (AFAICS) so there's no reason to regard it as spam.
> Viper has a hair-trigger and regards _anything_ as spam, even if it's
> useful to the community as a whole. I think he'd only be happy if
> there was nothing posted except his own ego.
>
>
> I would suggest in all modesty though, that a bit more editing in your
> future subject lines might make them less ambiguous and prone to mis-
> interpretation 8-)
>
>
> Once again, my apologies for reacting too hastily.
>
>

Naw, you were right in the first place, Andy. It was spam.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Viper

2007-10-25, 6:22 pm

Andy Dingley wrote:
> It's a relevant post to the newsgroup. You didn't spam on the basis of
> volume either (AFAICS) so there's no reason to regard it as spam.
> Viper has a hair-trigger and regards _anything_ as spam, even if it's
> useful to the community as a whole. I think he'd only be happy if
> there was nothing posted except his own ego.
>
Do a Google search on his domain name. He has spammed a few dozen places.

Viper

2007-10-25, 6:22 pm

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> Naw, you were right in the first place, Andy. It was spam.

Spam for his affiliate link for some lame host noone has heard of before.

Yorkshire Pete

2007-10-25, 6:22 pm

On 24 Oct 2007 Steve Sobol wrote in alt.www.webmaster

> I started ignoring Snakey due to
> stupidity (his, not mine).

Yah right.

--
D?
Yorkshire Pete
http://yorkshirepete.com/

Doug Baiter

2007-10-25, 6:22 pm

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:30:18 -0400, "Viper" <venomx@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:

>Andy Dingley wrote:
>Do a Google search on his domain name. He has spammed a few dozen places.
>
I humbly suggest that a better use of time could be to Google *your*
name instead, which would potentially inform the reader of your
obsession with (what you see as) spam, and even a potential
explanation of why you reserve most venom for 'affiliate spam' - i.e.
its something you've had trouble with in the past yourself with your
doomed PPC campaigns :o)
Someone said back in 2001 that your 'cure' was worse than the
'disease'. Nothings changed...

Doug Baiter

2007-10-25, 6:22 pm

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:39:10 -0400, "Viper" <venomx@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:

>Doug Baiter wrote:
>
>You keep telling the spammers and n00bs that and Ill keep getting their
>accounts nuked. :)
>
The only thing you've ever succeeded in nuking is your own, and by
extension this entire groups, credibility. You must know by now that
the vast majority of providers who've been unfortunate enough to have
you complain have decided you're nothing more than a spamkop wannabe,
and treat your complaints accordingly, so we're forced to wonder what
on Earth you intend to achieve with your insistence that you keep
getting accounts 'nuked'.

Ed Jay

2007-10-25, 6:22 pm

Andy Dingley scribed:

>On 24 Oct, 21:09, 1001 Webs <1001w...@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:
>
>
>However in this case, he's quite right. Your postings are
>unsolicited, irrelevant, against-charter pure-and-simple-spam.
>
Not trying to be a contrarian here, but there is absolutely nothing in the
charter for this group that speaks to advertisements or spam. You're
confusing the FAQ, a truly worthless document insofar as enforcing policy in
the Group is concerned, with the Charter for the Group.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Doug Baiter

2007-10-25, 6:22 pm

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:11:51 -0700, Ed Jay <edMbj@aes-intl.com> wrote:

>Andy Dingley scribed:
>
>Not trying to be a contrarian here, but there is absolutely nothing in the
>charter for this group that speaks to advertisements or spam. You're
>confusing the FAQ, a truly worthless document insofar as enforcing policy in
>the Group is concerned, with the Charter for the Group.

<<spontaneous applause >>

Jerry Stuckle

2007-10-25, 6:22 pm

Ed Jay wrote:
> Andy Dingley scribed:
>
> Not trying to be a contrarian here, but there is absolutely nothing in the
> charter for this group that speaks to advertisements or spam. You're
> confusing the FAQ, a truly worthless document insofar as enforcing policy in
> the Group is concerned, with the Charter for the Group.

Ed,

This is an alt group. Alt groups don't have charters.

But the FAQ serves as a de facto document for the newsgroup.

I know you and Master Baiter love spam. But many of us here don't.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Ed Jay

2007-10-25, 6:22 pm

Jerry Stuckle scribed:

>Ed Jay wrote:
>
>Ed,
>
>This is an alt group. Alt groups don't have charters.
>
>But the FAQ serves as a de facto document for the newsgroup.

Adherence seems to be limited in scope to a core group of individuals who
frequently occupy the Group.
>
>I know you and Master Baiter love spam. But many of us here don't.

I see that we read his nym the same way. :-))

You know that I don't like spam, but that you and I merely have differences
over the definition of spam. I've accepted that it's OK for us to have that
difference. Don't you think it's allowed us to maintain a civil discourse,
instead of banging our heads against the wall.

I do think that Baiter makes one good point regarding the absence of
adherence to the rules by the "regular" participants versus the Draconian
enforcement of the rules to new visitors to the Group. It's good practice
for people to lurk for a while to get the flavor of the Group before
posting. Nothing but praise to Karl for posting his article, but the site
contains advertisements, and we've seen newcomers' hosting cancelled for
much less. What is the lurker supposed to think?

To Baiter: Someone here used to host a list of AWW "regulars" aka "frequent
contributors." It was a long list of people who had some great technical
discussions, joke sessions, etc. AWW was a friendly and helpful group,
because of who composed the Group. Most of those good folks no longer
participate. Have you ever given thought to why they're gone? If you have,
please rethink the situation. Thanks.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

Red E. Kilowatt

2007-10-25, 6:22 pm

Ed Jay <edMbj@aes-intl.com> wrote in message:
36j1i3l5255jlu3prpea1n98vlfus11jqh@4ax.com,

> Nothing but praise to Karl for posting his
> article, but the site contains advertisements,

It's Karl's article but it's not his site. Would you be mentioning this
if he had gotten an article posted in Time Magazine and posted the link
here?

> and we've seen
> newcomers' hosting cancelled for much less.

So, in view of the above fact--no we haven't.

Despite the fact that the word "spam" is thrown around quite carelessly
and the subject of much debate, the issue here is whether the group
should continue to hold the line on unsolicited advertising or not.

For all the spamcopping that goes on here, there are precious few
cancelled accounts to show for it. The myth of a clueless webmaster who
innocently posts an ad here and then gets his hosting account cancelled
is just that--a myth.

How many hosting accounts have been cancelled over the years? 5? 10? And
how many of those were free hosting accounts who will cancel based on
any complaint? I'll wager it's very close to 100% Add a few free email
accounts, a few affiliate agreements for violations, and you have an
accurate reflection of the number and types of accounts that have been
cancelled based on one ad posted to this group.

People who spamcop don't cancel accounts. The responsibility for that
lies with the person who posted the ad and his service provider. If a
service providers cancels an account unfairly, then perhaps they weren't
worth having in the first place.

At any rate, the overwhelming majority of people who are spamcopped are
usually dissuaded from posting additional advertisements, and that my
friends is the only reason this group has not been completely taken over
by spammers.

There has been some--shall we say-- leniency shown to long-time regulars
on this issue, but it only extends so far, and I would argue that it is
justified. I believe that people who have been here contributing to this
group for years are entitled to some leniency, but not a free pass
either. And besides, anyone who thinks the spamcopping is being applied
unfairly is free to do their own share of spamcopping to even things
out.

People obviously have different opinions on the spamcopping, but for all
of the arguing and carrying on that has gone on over the years there is
one thing that will never change; unsolicited advertising will usually
be reported and the FAQ will be cited in those complaints. Not everyone
is going to be happy about that, and especially not happy about the
heavy-handed way that a certain individual often spamcops, but most
reasonable people have decided it's not worth creating a bigger problem
and a greater distraction.

Most reasonable people. However, there is one person who has spent
several years disrupting and trolling this newsgroup. He looks for any
opening to create an argument on his favorite subject and then does
whatever he can to exploit the disagreement. He has gone to some
outrageous extremes and done some really despicable things. He points to
Viper and others as justification for all that he has done. What kind
of a person trolls a group for YEARS whining about one thing? Is that
reasonable on any level? Or is it a sign of mental illness that is far
greater than the pathology he so often complains about?

I'm replying to your post Ed, but this was really directed at everyone.
Let's put our differences on spamcopping aside and talk about something
else, like webmastering. :-)

--
Red

Doug Baiter

2007-10-25, 6:22 pm

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:35:32 -0700, Ed Jay <edMbj@aes-intl.com> wrote:

>Jerry Stuckle scribed:
>
Ummmm, thats what I said. Regularly.
[color=darkred]
>
Ummmm, rubbish. Its a document written by one member of the group who
put his personal slant on what *he* thought should or shouldn't be
allowed, and was rightly slated for it and had the majority of the
grop veto it.

>Adherence seems to be limited in scope to a core group of individuals who
>frequently occupy the Group.
>
>I see that we read his nym the same way. :-))
>
In the eye of the beholder... :o)

>You know that I don't like spam, but that you and I merely have differences
>over the definition of spam. I've accepted that it's OK for us to have that
>difference. Don't you think it's allowed us to maintain a civil discourse,
>instead of banging our heads against the wall.
>
Jerry is well aware that I despise spam too, in fact thats probably
why he insisted on calling me one for months despite being told even
by his peers that he was wrong. Still, thats in the past. My point was
that I think the definition of spam as applied by some here is a
flawed one, and further that it is inconsistently applied.

>I do think that Baiter makes one good point regarding the absence of
>adherence to the rules by the "regular" participants versus the Draconian
>enforcement of the rules to new visitors to the Group. It's good practice
>for people to lurk for a while to get the flavor of the Group before
>posting. Nothing but praise to Karl for posting his article, but the site
>contains advertisements, and we've seen newcomers' hosting cancelled for
>much less. What is the lurker supposed to think?
>
>To Baiter: Someone here used to host a list of AWW "regulars" aka "frequent
>contributors." It was a long list of people who had some great technical
>discussions, joke sessions, etc. AWW was a friendly and helpful group,
>because of who composed the Group. Most of those good folks no longer
>participate. Have you ever given thought to why they're gone? If you have,
>please rethink the situation. Thanks.

I've *regularly* thought about that. I'm thinking of people like Matt
P (although I think he still pops by occasionally), Iso, Makrobicz,
etc. A couple of months ago I was curious enough to look up the stats
and saw that the most-contributed-to thread for a month started with
the letters OT - disappointing, eh?
For roughly the last two years, I've restricted my posting with the
'nullified' id to merely replying to "fook off spammer" posts, and
left it at that. The recent ramping up of flames has more to do with
Reds 'hate-sites' than anything else, at http://kook.us and
http://mike-dean-kook.com/, which he uses to make libellous comments
about various posters in a couple of newsgroups. I'm of the opinion
that not pointing this out to others in groups he uses allows him to
think that this is an acceptable standard of online conduct, when it
most clearly isn't, so I'd guess it might be a while till the next
ceasefire. Still, I'll place a bet that it quietens down for a while
from Monday night - I'm off for a month in the Caribbean :o)

Doug Baiter

2007-10-25, 6:22 pm

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:40:11 -0700, "Red E. Kilowatt"
<redkilowattREMOVE@aww-faq.org> wrote:

>
>So, in view of the above fact--no we haven't.
>
Ummm, yes, we *have*. Snakepiss alone has made at least six victorious
"we cancelled the account" posts this year.
>
>At any rate, the overwhelming majority of people who are spamcopped are
>usually dissuaded from posting additional advertisements, and that my
>friends is the only reason this group has not been completely taken over
>by spammers.
>
Gibberish. I post in more than 15 newsgroups, none of which are
overrun by spammers, and only this one has the topic come up almost
daily.

>There has been some--shall we say-- leniency shown to long-time regulars
>on this issue, but it only extends so far, and I would argue that it is
>justified.

Then you are completely, massively, fundamentally, wrong. Its nothing
short of outrageous that a group can moan to ISPs and represent
themselves as being authoritative in the group, while at the same time
condoning a similar level of 'abuse' from their friends. Either
everyone has to follow the rules, or nobody does.

I believe that people who have been here contributing to this
>group for years are entitled to some leniency, but not a free pass
>either. And besides, anyone who thinks the spamcopping is being applied
>unfairly is free to do their own share of spamcopping to even things
>out.
>
So in order to even things up, those who oppose kopping should become
kops themselves? Jesus wept...
>

Doug Baiter

2007-10-25, 6:22 pm

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:40:11 -0700, "Red E. Kilowatt"
<redkilowattREMOVE@aww-faq.org> wrote:

<Separate reply so as not to confuse the sensible points and the
flaming ones>
>
>Most reasonable people. However, there is one person who has spent
>several years disrupting and trolling this newsgroup.

Errrr... you? Oh, sorry, you mean me! Remind me again what this
"trolling" is, Red? Disagreeing with you and a few others on the
definition of spam? *Thats* what makes me a troll? Still, lets move
on...

>He looks for any
>opening to create an argument on his favorite subject and then does
>whatever he can to exploit the disagreement.

A little like you are doing, right now, in this very thread you mean?
Still, lets move on...

> He has gone to some
>outrageous extremes

Like putting up a hate-site at http://mike-dean-kook.com/, you mean?
Oh, no, thats you, isn't it? Still, lets move on...

>and done some really despicable things.

The *only* thing in your post you're remotely correct on. Yes, I did
fly off the handle when Jerry refused to stop calling me a spammer. I
over reacted badly and I should not have said what I did despite
provocation. I apologised sincerely for that - but of course you
decided NOT to put that apology in your hate-site, did you? Still,
lets move on...

>He points to
>Viper and others as justification for all that he has done. What kind
>of a person trolls a group for YEARS whining about one thing? Is that
>reasonable on any level?

Is publishing a hate-site where you can selectively snip posts to
misrepresent them, and where you also publish names and addresses
"reasonable on any level"? Of COURSE its not. Still, lets move on...

>Or is it a sign of mental illness that is far
>greater than the pathology he so often complains about?
>
I'm "mentally ill" for the crime of holding the same argument for
several years? Wow, better send out word that the lunatic asylums need
some extra rooms... As I've pointed out before, the nature of my work
means I have many many more appraisals than yer average Joe, including
lots of psych evaluations. I must have them all fooled, eh Red? Still,
lets move on...

>I'm replying to your post Ed, but this was really directed at everyone.

No, you're not. You're obsessing over your old foe again, and looking
for an opportunity to spout another monologue about him. Still, lets
move on...

>Let's put our differences on spamcopping aside and talk about something
>else, like webmastering. :-)

It would be lovely to talk about webmastering. Unfortunately, every
single day without fail, you republish libellous comments about
posters from several groups, which rather diverts attention from
entertaining topics and instead focuses it on that instead. Lets NOT
move on. Lets persuade you how wrong on every level your current
actions are, and THEN move on.

Jerry Stuckle

2007-10-26, 3:37 am

Ed Jay wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle scribed:
>
>
> Adherence seems to be limited in scope to a core group of individuals who
> frequently occupy the Group.

Yep, most of the regulars in this group agreed to the FAQ's when they
were written. And if you can get a majority of the regulars here to
change it, you're free to do so.

>
> I see that we read his nym the same way. :-))
>
> You know that I don't like spam, but that you and I merely have differences
> over the definition of spam. I've accepted that it's OK for us to have that
> difference. Don't you think it's allowed us to maintain a civil discourse,
> instead of banging our heads against the wall.
>

In this group, it includes unsolicited commercial posts. I don't have a
problem if John asks for something and Bob responds "I can do that".

But I do have a problem with Bob just posting unsolicited "I can do
that" messages.

But then I've been through that with another good newsgroup that went
completely to hell, mainly because the unsolicited commercial messages
overtook it - alt.computer.consultants. Now you have to look very hard
to find *any* messages about consulting.

> I do think that Baiter makes one good point regarding the absence of
> adherence to the rules by the "regular" participants versus the Draconian
> enforcement of the rules to new visitors to the Group. It's good practice
> for people to lurk for a while to get the flavor of the Group before
> posting. Nothing but praise to Karl for posting his article, but the site
> contains advertisements, and we've seen newcomers' hosting cancelled for
> much less. What is the lurker supposed to think?
>

Yep, but I don't see the regulars posting unsolicited ads here. They
don't like it, either.

> To Baiter: Someone here used to host a list of AWW "regulars" aka "frequent
> contributors." It was a long list of people who had some great technical
> discussions, joke sessions, etc. AWW was a friendly and helpful group,
> because of who composed the Group. Most of those good folks no longer
> participate. Have you ever given thought to why they're gone? If you have,
> please rethink the situation. Thanks.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Jerry Stuckle

2007-10-26, 3:37 am

Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
>
> For all the spamcopping that goes on here, there are precious few
> cancelled accounts to show for it. The myth of a clueless webmaster who
> innocently posts an ad here and then gets his hosting account cancelled
> is just that--a myth.
>
> How many hosting accounts have been cancelled over the years? 5? 10? And
> how many of those were free hosting accounts who will cancel based on
> any complaint? I'll wager it's very close to 100% Add a few free email
> accounts, a few affiliate agreements for violations, and you have an
> accurate reflection of the number and types of accounts that have been
> cancelled based on one ad posted to this group.
>

A lot more than that, Red. I've gotten 5 canceled in one month. I just
don't post results like Viper does. And none of them were free
accounts. But I'm sure the hosting companies verified the complaint
before canceling them. Responsible hosting companies with strong
anti-spam policies do.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Doug Baiter

2007-10-26, 6:16 am

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:11:47 -0400, Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>Yep, most of the regulars in this group agreed to the FAQ's when they
>were written. And if you can get a majority of the regulars here to
>change it, you're free to do so.
>
No. Actually the majority of posters voted *not* to accept the
proposed FAQ, but Red decided to discount most votes against it on the
basis that they didn't agree with him and were therefore unworthy of
consideration. Remember, Google is ALWAYS your friend...

1001 Webs

2007-10-30, 7:19 pm

On Oct 24, 9:52 pm, "Red E. Kilowatt" <redkilowattREM...@aww-faq.org>
wrote:
> 1001 Webs <1001w...@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote in message:
>
> 1193237768.760584.320...@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com,
>
>
>
>
> I'm sure you'll find Viper's answer (if he gives one) to be somewhat
> less than satisfying, so allow me to take a stab at answering your
> question.
>
> The purpose of this newsgroup is to exchange information about
> webmastering, but it is not intended to be a vehicle for soliciting
> business or business partners. The group's FAQ does not mention spam
> because that is a loaded word for a lot of people that causes a lot of
> arguments. Instead, the FAQ refers to unsolicited advertising.
>
> http://www.aww-faq.org
> "Ads are not welcome in AWW, whether on-topic or not. In fact, they are
> so unwelcome that they are usually reported to the poster's ISP and web
> host, etc. by some newsgroup members who really don't like ads. Read the
> Advertising in AWW section for a definition of what we consider
> unsolicited commercial advertising and likely to get you reported, and
> what types of web site promotion are considered appropriate. If all you
> want to do is post ads, then go to alt.www.webmaster.ads(AWWA) or some
> other newsgroup that has a more ad-tolerant attitude. Please read the
> FAQ for AWWA athttp://awwa.aww-faq.org/before you post an ad there."
>
> And further down, under "Advertising in AWW"
>
> "Unsolicited commercial messages of any kind are prohibited, and will
> probably be reported to the sender's ISP and web host etc. by one or
> more of AWW's regular participants. "Commercial" is defined in The
> American Heritage=AE Dictionary as "Having profit as a chief aim" and
> that's an excellent way to define the type of messages we don't want.
> You cannot promote your web site, offer to "sell" anything, exchange
> links, form partnerships, etc."
>
> --
> Red

My most sincere apologies.
I didn't read the FAQ and I should have.

All I can say in our defense is that the profit derived for that
unsolicited advertising was meant to be shared with those partners and
that the link posted lead to nothing else than a Contact form page.

But you are absolutely right.
Please accept my apologies.
The only thing I can do now is mark the Post for removal. But now I'm
not sure whether I should do that since it has evolved into a full
thread?

1001 Webs

2007-10-30, 7:19 pm

On Oct 24, 11:44 pm, Doug Baiter <doug-bai...@no.where> wrote:
> On 24 Oct 2007 13:09:09 -0700, 1001 Webs <1001w...@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Viper, aka snakepiss, is a long-term whiny loser. Add him to your
> ignore list and you'll find it quieter. Likewise Red E Kilowatt, who
> only wants to allow advertising by him and his pals. Red refers to a
> 'FAQ' which prohibits advertising, but fails to point out that his FAQ
> is utterly worthless on several counts, not least of which that he's
> an obsessive nutter who writes deranged FAQ's for giggles - takehttp://ko=
ok.usas a classic example. Then theres the fact that as this
> is an alt hierarchy newsgroup, it doesn't have a FAQ. Or even that
> when this worthless FAQ was written, the majority of the group voted
> to NOT have it in an independent ballot.

Oh, I didn't know about that side of Viper.
I genuinely thought he was some nutty case on some sort of Crusade
against Spammers and I did admire him for that, but I could never
imagine he was a Spammer himself ?=A1?

Are those allegations true, Viper?

1001 Webs

2007-10-30, 7:19 pm

On Oct 25, 4:30 pm, "Viper" <ven...@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:
> Andy Dingley wrote:
>
> Do a Google search on his domain name. He has spammed a few dozen places.

Have we?
Let me check ...

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF...s=1&q=1001+webs
I can't find anything that can be regarded as SPAM, at least in the
first page.
BTW, this thread is comes up as the sixth entry, and believe me when I
say that it wasn't at all my intention to have your nickname
associated with us.

Jerry Stuckle

2007-10-30, 7:19 pm

1001 Webs wrote:
> On Oct 24, 11:44 pm, Doug Baiter <doug-bai...@no.where> wrote:
>
> Oh, I didn't know about that side of Viper.
> I genuinely thought he was some nutty case on some sort of Crusade
> against Spammers and I did admire him for that, but I could never
> imagine he was a Spammer himself ?¡?
>
> Are those allegations true, Viper?
>
>

Don't worry about Master Baiter. He's a well known troll here in this
newsgroup. He absolutely LOVES to see spam.

And yes, Viper and others here perform a useful purpose - doing their
best to keep this newsgroup as free from spam as possible. Quite a few
accounts have been canceled due to his and a few others actions.

People with reputable hosting companies don't get a second chance to
spam here.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

1001 Webs

2007-10-30, 7:19 pm

On Oct 30, 5:23 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> 1001 Webs wrote:
>
/kook.usasa classic example. Then theres the fact that as this[color=darkred]
>
>
>
> Don't worry about Master Baiter. He's a well known troll here in this
> newsgroup. He absolutely LOVES to see spam.
>
> And yes, Viper and others here perform a useful purpose - doing their
> best to keep this newsgroup as free from spam as possible. Quite a few
> accounts have been canceled due to his and a few others actions.
>
> People with reputable hosting companies don't get a second chance to
> spam here.
>
> --
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> Remove the "x" from my email address
> Jerry Stuckle
> JDS Computer Training Corp.
> jstuck...@attglobal.net
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Understood.
Keep up the good work, I mean it.
1001 apologies.

Steve Sobol

2007-10-30, 7:19 pm

On 2007-10-30, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:

> Don't worry about Master Baiter. He's a well known troll here in this
> newsgroup. He absolutely LOVES to see spam.
>
> And yes, Viper and others here perform a useful purpose - doing their
> best to keep this newsgroup as free from spam as possible. Quite a few
> accounts have been canceled due to his and a few others actions.

If that's all Viper did, I'd not have a problem with him. But between his
hair-trigger and his stupid brainless political rants and his affinity for
branding ANYONE who argues with him as a terrorist sympathyizer... I have
no use for him. The guy's a XXXXing moron.

--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com

SoCal Fire news @the L.A. Times: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/breakingnews/
Local wildfire coverage, KFMB-TV San Diego: http://cbs8.com/

Secret Agent X

2007-10-30, 7:19 pm

Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:

>Don't worry about Master Baiter. He's a well known troll here in this
>newsgroup. He absolutely LOVES to see spam.

Said the pot calling the kettle black.

>
>And yes, Viper and others here perform a useful purpose - doing their
>best to keep this newsgroup as free from spam as possible. Quite a few
>accounts have been canceled due to his and a few others actions.
>

No they don't. They are worthless and pointless trolls with no place
on usenet.

>People with reputable hosting companies don't get a second chance to
>spam here.

Which just goes to show how irreputable the hosting company for JDS
Computer Taining Corp. is, for example. Which is regularly spammed
here, taking every opportunity to post pointless one liners - while
retaining full quoted previous threaded messages contary to usenet
etiquette - just so that they can once again thrust their brand name
in the faces of the gullible.

>
>-
>==================
>Remove the "x" from my email address
>Jerry Stuckle
>JDS Computer Training Corp.
>jstuckle@attglobal.net
>==================
>

X