"RH" <rh@no-spicedham.exelsys.com> wrote in message
news:f3kdfb$ids$1$830fa795@news.demon.co.uk[color=blue]
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> news:5c5pibF2updo3U1@mid.individual.net...
>[color=green]
> > I assume they are asking people to respond here,
> > eventually a business contact will come along. It's
> > happened before that way.[color=darkred]
> > > You seem to be painting yourself into a corner.[/color]
> >
> > Not at all. Spam is still spam.
> >[/color]
> What kind of daft Logic is that?[/color]

Truth.
[color=blue]
> Your saying a message or a thread is spam not because of
> what it says but what the thread might say in the future.
>
> So if no followup message of a commerical basis does
> appear from this sender? then the OP is not SPAM and your
> are Wrong So the same logic would tend to suggest that if *ANY* of
> your future posts show a one sided view of SIPAGTE which
> a user may think is commerically biased that your previous posts
> could be classed as SPAM.[/color]

They could only be biased if I had a commercial interest in the company,
which I don't.
[color=blue]
> Just grow some balls and admit your wrong on this one,
> your wrong on this one and you know it, the newsgroup
> knows it.[/color]

At least you said newsgroup.