On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:08:00 +0200, Roy Culley wrote:
> begin risky.vbs
> <QbadnUIzo7Oh_bPYnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Linonut <linonut@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>> On 12 Oct 2006 06:54:22 -0700, Sean Inglis wrote:
>>>
>>>>> This sort of spamming occurs in no other NG that I am aware of.
>>>>
>>>> It is not spam. They are relevant on-topic posts. You need to look
>>>> up the standard definition of spam. You also need to look at the
>>>> state of a few other newsgroups if you genuinely consider this to
>>>> be true.
>>>
>>> So, If I flooded this newsgroup with 10,000 messages that related
>>> to Linux in some way every hour, you would have no problem with
>>> that?
>>
>> Yes. But that's not nearly how many Roy posts.
>>
>> I actually love it that Roy's posts gets your panties in a wad.
>
> Not just Erik's panties. Flatty and Quark seem even more obsessed with
> Roy's posts.
>
>>> It's a question of volume and quality. Many news servers rotate
>>> content after a certain number of messages. Posting 2000 messages
>>> a week causes the newsgroup to flush way too quickly in all but the
>>> largest news servers. Roy posts more messages in 1 *DAY* than COLA
>>> has historically had in 1-2 weeks.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>
> Once again Erik is just lying. He really is lacking in any ethical
> values.
Here we go again.
Float a balloon, get the COLA gang to *me too* it and it becomes an urban
legend.
FWIW, nobody but the most moronic idiot likes reading ANY newsgroup that
is flooded with 10,s of 1000's of one way messages like Roy does.
Even his choir (Mark Kent, William "empty suit" Poaster and YOU, Roy
Culley, can't keep up with the *me too* posts to show some kind of
activity in response to his drivel.
His rating on digg and Netscape, where he spams the same stuff is also
horrible compared to others.
So is everybody else wrong but you guys?
I don't think so.
|
|
