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.
--
Security is one of those funny things. You can talk about being "more"
secure, but there's no such thing. A vulnerability is a vulnerability, and
even one makes you just as insecure as anyone else. Security is a binary
condition, either you are or you aren't. - Funkenbusch 1 Oct 2006
|
|
