WHat is Spam

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message:
Just because this little corner of cyberspace isn't well populated
at this particular moment in time doesn't mean a non-commercial Usenet
newsgroup should be allowed to become a commercial newsgroup.


Well, this crystallizes the argument du jour. You represent the small
population which believes those few amongst us who have comment or
connection in this group to their own product lines have crossed the
commercial Rubicon. I appear to be in the small population who believes
they have not. The question is what to do?

Ban them for life - if that can be done at all? Hector them into digital
submission? If they are so reprehensive, why not just *plonk* them? There
aren't so many as to be an onerous job.

johnval1 wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message:
Just because this little corner of cyberspace isn't well populated
at this particular moment in time doesn't mean a non-commercial Usenet
newsgroup should be allowed to become a commercial newsgroup.

snip
If they are so reprehensive, why not just *plonk* them? There
aren't so many as to be an onerous job.

Don't put words in my mouth. I have never referred to Rodney,
SWL or GoToBaits as reprehensive. In fact, I refer to them as
the good guys.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message ...
Don't put words in my mouth. I have never referred to Rodney,
SWL or GoToBaits as reprehensive. In fact, I refer to them as
the good guys.


Ken, I would never deign to speak for someone else. Not under any
circumstances. As far as I am concerned, we are all on our own in word and
deed.

What I see in this discussion is a reference to behaviors that are
objectionable and (to me in my view of the argument) reprehensive in the
eyes of others. A violation of the normative purity of usenet, eh?

So, your objections to these guys are purely philosophical? Good to hear
you think they are the good guys. I don't know any of them from Adam's
house cat and I have no idea if they are good guys or not. However, I don't
find what they say problematic.

As interesting as this is, I have to sign off and take the Pugs to the vet's
for an oil change.

johnval1 wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message ...
Don't put words in my mouth. I have never referred to Rodney,
SWL or GoToBaits as reprehensive. In fact, I refer to them as
the good guys.

...
So, your objections to these guys are purely philosophical? Good to hear
you think they are the good guys. ...

There you go again. I have no objections whatsoever to "these guys".
My objections are solely related to Usenet SPAM, commercials posted
to a non-commercial Usenet newsgroup. Any one of the folks mentioned
in this thread could have my next-to-last Budweiser or a seat in the
front of my canoe or both.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message

There you go again. I have no objections whatsoever to "these guys".
My objections are solely related to Usenet SPAM, commercials posted
to a non-commercial Usenet newsgroup. Any one of the folks mentioned
in this thread could have my next-to-last Budweiser or a seat in the
front of my canoe or both.


Sorry Ken, I knew Ronald Reagan and you're no Ronald Regan :-)

Since I take it you are speaking in very generalized terms with no specific
people in mind, I guess this conversation has run aground. Rodney and
Randy, "you guys" appear to be off the hook.

It's Miller Time Ken. Pop one of those Buds and keep on thinking good
thoughts.

johnval1 wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
There you go again. I have no objections whatsoever to "these guys".
My objections are solely related to Usenet SPAM, commercials posted
to a non-commercial Usenet newsgroup. Any one of the folks mentioned
in this thread could have my next-to-last Budweiser or a seat in the
front of my canoe or both.

Sorry Ken, I knew Ronald Reagan and you're no Ronald Regan :-)

Since I take it you are speaking in very generalized terms with no specific
people in mind, I guess this conversation has run aground. Rodney and
Randy, "you guys" appear to be off the hook.

Why do you want to posit personalities into a discussion of SPAM ?
I can disagree with folks without finding them "reprehensive" or
"objectionable", apparently you have some difficulty in that regard.
You sound to me like a troublemaker. You suggested I *plonk* some
long-time contributors to this forum but if all you have to contribute
is s***-stirring I'd be better advised to just *plonk* you.

And get yourself a real dog, pugs are for sissies.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
You sound to me like a troublemaker. You suggested I *plonk* some
long-time contributors to this forum but if all you have to contribute
is s***-stirring I'd be better advised to just *plonk* you.

Feel free to do so Ken. As my generation used to say, if it feels good, do
it.


And get yourself a real dog, pugs are for sissies.


By definitiion then, I am a sissy as well as a troublemaker. (So much for
not injecting personalities into the discussion, eh?) I guess I always have
been and always will be. My Pugs however don't give a rat's butt and love
me nonetheless.