UKVoIPTalk.com

"RH" <rh@no-spicedham.exelsys.com> wrote in message
news:f3jte6$kq3$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk[color=blue]
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> news:5c3vsjF2vh0bgU2@mid.individual.net...[color=green][color=darkred]
> > >
> > > > As I said, take it or leave it.
> > >
> > > Please do not be so stupid Ivor this IS a forum .[/color]
> >
> > Even if it were, Ron, I'd say it wasn't, just to annoy
> > you. Ivor[/color]
> Ivor
>
> So real discussion about about VOIP by the OP is seen as
> unworthy by you on the Newsgroup/Forum but using it for
> you petty personal wars to annoy people is deemed within the spec of the
> newsgroup?[/color]

I didn't start it, the person who first called this group a forum did.
Blame them.


Ivor

> I didn't start it, the person who first called this group a forum did.[color=blue]
> Blame them.[/color]

maybe this forum on a newsgroup should be changed to
uk.telecom.voip.preschool with logic like that

"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:5c5pibF2updo3U1@mid.individual.net...
[color=blue]
> I assume they are asking people to respond here, eventually a business
> contact will come along. It's happened before that way.
>[color=green]
>> 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?
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.

Just grow some balls and admit your wrong on this one, your wrong on this
one and you know it, the newsgroup knows it.

"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.

"RH" <rh@no-spicedham.exelsys.com> wrote in message
news:f3kcng$afh$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk[color=blue][color=green]
> > I didn't start it, the person who first called this
> > group a forum did. Blame them.[/color]
>
> maybe this forum on a newsgroup should be changed to
> uk.telecom.voip.preschool with logic like that[/color]

Maybe so, but the statement holds.

Ivor

In message <5c3vuqF2v9813U1@mid.individual.net>
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>
> "Dave Higton" <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
> news:c318beea4e.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com[color=green]
> >
> > Usenet doesn't render an ordinary dictionary wrong or
> > inapplicable. This is a forum for discussion, in the
> > general sense of the word.[/color]
>
> No, it is a newsgroup, in which a forum may take place.[/color]

A forum can't "take place", Ivor. That's a logical nonsense.
A forum can exist, even if it's an abstract existence.

The newsgroup is the forum.

Dave

Ivor Jones wrote:[color=blue]
> "Desk Rabbit" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message
> news:G8ednU3RDuo27cDbRVnytgA@pipex.net
>[color=green]
>>Ivor Jones wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>"Desk Rabbit" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message
>>>news:voadnVJ6BMvumcHbnZ2dneKdnZzinZ2d@pipex.net
>>>
>>>>Ivor Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Right. The part of your sentence above "whoever they
>>>>>are" says it all to me. If they were a reputable
>>>>>organisation they wouldn't hide.
>>>>
>>>>I'm a reputable organisation but I don't display my
>>>>company information on every post I make. Neither do I
>>>>display a valid email address. Therefore by your
>>>>definition Ivor, every message I post is spam.
>>>
>>>Not at all. However if you were to try and advertise
>>>your business here, that would be spam.[/color]
>>
>>
>>So just where exactly did the OP advertise their
>>business? By your own admission they did not give a web
>>site nor an email address.
>>An advert without any means of contacting the business
>>does not seem very worthwhile.[/color]
>
>
> I assume they are asking people to respond here, eventually a business
> contact will come along. It's happened before that way.[/color]
Assumpton - the mother of all **** ups.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>You seem to be painting yourself into a corner.[/color]
>
>
> Not at all. Spam is still spam.[/color]

So the Ivor definition of newsgroup spam based on what you have said in
this thread, is that it is spam provided it advertises something (or
not), has a valid email address (or not), has a web site (or not) and
may at some point in the distant future lead to some possibility that
there might just be the faint hint of a posting with some sort of
commercial bias related to the original posting.

Brilliant Ivor, just plain brilliant.

"Desk Rabbit" <spam-me-not@example.com> wrote in message
news:ro6dnRjjpqExZsDbRVnyhwA@pipex.net

[snip]
[color=blue]
> So the Ivor definition of newsgroup spam based on what
> you have said in this thread, is that it is spam provided
> it advertises something (or not), has a valid email
> address (or not), has a web site (or not) and may at some
> point in the distant future lead to some possibility that
> there might just be the faint hint of a posting with some
> sort of commercial bias related to the original posting.
> Brilliant Ivor, just plain brilliant.[/color]

Who said it was my definition..? Spam is spam is spam, whoever defines it.

Ivor

"Dave Higton" <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:0ca742eb4e.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com[color=blue]
> In message <5c3vuqF2v9813U1@mid.individual.net>
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >
> >
> > "Dave Higton" <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in
> > message news:c318beea4e.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com[color=darkred]
> > >
> > > Usenet doesn't render an ordinary dictionary wrong or
> > > inapplicable. This is a forum for discussion, in the
> > > general sense of the word.[/color]
> >
> > No, it is a newsgroup, in which a forum may take place.[/color]
>
> A forum can't "take place", Ivor. That's a logical
> nonsense. A forum can exist, even if it's an abstract
> existence.[/color]

But not here.[color=blue]
>
> The newsgroup is the forum.[/color]

No. The space in which messages are stored, on one or more servers on the
internet, is a newsgroup.

A forum can take place on it, but the group itself is not and never will
be a forum.

Ivor

Ivor Jones wrote:[color=blue]
> "Desk Rabbit" <spam-me-not@example.com> wrote in message
> news:ro6dnRjjpqExZsDbRVnyhwA@pipex.net
>
> [snip]
>[color=green]
>> So the Ivor definition of newsgroup spam based on what
>> you have said in this thread, is that it is spam provided
>> it advertises something (or not), has a valid email
>> address (or not), has a web site (or not) and may at some
>> point in the distant future lead to some possibility that
>> there might just be the faint hint of a posting with some
>> sort of commercial bias related to the original posting.
>> Brilliant Ivor, just plain brilliant.[/color]
>
> Who said it was my definition..? Spam is spam is spam, whoever defines it.[/color]

From your own words in this thread:-

"I assume they are asking people to respond here, eventually a business
contact will come along. It's happened before that way."

"Not at all. However if you were to try and advertise your business
here, that would be spam."

"It isn't irrelevant. The post was spam. The lack of a valid address
merely compounds it."

"Right. The part of your sentence above "whoever they are" says it all
to me. If they were a reputable organisation they wouldn't hide."

"Indeed. But a company that uses a munged address and doesn't provide a
website where you can check out their products is somewhat suspicious to
my mind."

Your words Ivor, your words......

If I could be arsed I'd find plenty more examples.