Denial's hidden costs
Jim Webster
Môgãdöñ Jøhñ <môgãdöñjøhñ20...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d9edotso9321rj2qg...@4ax.com...> NetKKKop alert!
most profound. So you want the usenet to degenerate a dumping ground for the
spam?
fine
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
Môgãdöñ Jøhñ
<j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote:
>
>Môgãdöñ Jøhñ <môgãdöñjøhñ20...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:d9edotso9321rj2qg...@4ax.com...> NetKKKop alert!
>
>most profound. So you want the usenet to degenerate a dumping ground for the
>spam?
>
>fine
Hardly spam, is it? Very relevant to the NGs it was posted to I
thought.
Jim Webster
Mg d Jh <mg d jh 20...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dendot0klrub5t738...@4ax.com...
out of date agricultural stories posted to agricultural newsgroups and local
newsgroups where people are on the ground and know what's going on are
hardly relevant
Dave Fawthrop
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
news:9m7fv8$ent$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
: out of date agricultural stories posted to agricultural newsgroups and
local
: newsgroups where people are on the ground and know what's going on are
: hardly relevant
As far as uk.local.yorkshire is concerned, I only know of one regular poster
who works in agriculture. Not sure of the proportion of people in
Yorkshire generally who are employed in farming, but it must be low.
Perhaps higher than the national 2%. Say 3%. So this agricultural spam may
be a *very* minority interest
Brian {Hamilton Kelly}
môgãdöņjøhņ20...@hotmail.com "Môgãdöņ Jøhņ" writes:
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 22:48:07 +0100, "Jim Webster"
> <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote:
>
> >
> >MÃīgÃĢdÃķÃą JÃļhÃą <mÃīgÃĢdÃķÃąjÃļhÃą20...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:d9edotso9321rj2qg...@4ax.com...> NetKKKop alert!
> >
> >most profound. So you want the usenet to degenerate a dumping ground for the
> >spam?
> >
> >fine
>
> Hardly spam, is it? Very relevant to the NGs it was posted to I
> thought.
Absolutely NOT.
For example, it was posted to a number of uk.politics.* newsgroups,
including uk.politics.misc (for some reason, your follow-up appears to be
excluding all of those groups: was this by accident or design?)
If it was on charter (which is the acid test of "relevance") for one or
two of those uk.politics.* groups, then it was NOT relevant to
uk.politics.misc. By definition, the *.misc group of a hierarchy (ANY
hierarchy, not just uk.politics.*) is ONLY for those articles which are
not relevant to any other more specific group.
But: I suspect you knew that, and are just another trolling John in uly.
--
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} b...@dsl.co.uk
"We have gone from a world of concentrated knowledge and wisdom to one of
distributed ignorance. And we know and understand less while being incr-
easingly capable." Prof. Peter Cochrane, formerly of BT Labs
Jim Webster
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} <b...@dsl.co.uk> wrote in message
news:998845...@dsl.co.uk...
> In article <dendot0klrub5t738...@4ax.com>
> For example, it was posted to a number of uk.politics.* newsgroups,
> including uk.politics.misc (for some reason, your follow-up appears to be
> excluding all of those groups: was this by accident or design?)
The reason the groups were cut was that I cut them, five x posts is enough
for anybody and even that may be over the charter limit of one of the groups
still included.