Date parsed: 05/01/2008 18:40:18
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:40:18 -0500

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:58:48 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:

>Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:21:20 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:47:33 GMT, Doug Baiter <doug-baiter@no.where>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>>> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>> In <XrqdnW_lGbgurODanZ2dnUVZ_u_inZ2d@comcast.com> on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In <C3A2D429.F13D%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs <nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't get it. Why was the original post spam?
>>>>>>>>> It wasn't. It was many things, including being a
>>>>>>>>> pathetically-badly disguised festering heap of marketing shite,
>>>>>>>>> but it wasn't spam.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Those insisting it was spam are merely flaunting their
>>>>>>>>> cluelessness. A post is *only* defined as being spam when it
>>>>>>>>> breaches the Breidbart Index. Nobody has provided any evidence
>>>>>>>>> that that particular bit of midge's effluence has exceeded the BI.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.
>>>>>>> When was that decided? I must have missed that debate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's been dismissed as virtually meaningless for quite a while, now.
>>>>>> SPAM has changed, but the index hasn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In a.w.w, ads of any kind are considered SPAM.
>>>>>>> What aww might or might not consider is about as relevant outside
>>>>>>> aww as a spider's fart. I'm not reading this thread in aww.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fine. I am reading this in a.w.w., and it is spam here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The BI was adopted as a way of avoiding would-be Usenet vigilantes
>>>>>>> deciding to classify posts as spam on the basis that they disliked
>>>>>>> the contents. This discussion shows that the wisdom of that
>>>>>>> concern still has relevance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you have some meaningless, out of date measurement which doesn't say
>>>>>> something is spam or not, but only classifies the severity of the SPAM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Right. Try again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Until someone else comes up with a better content-blind objective
>>>>>>> definition of spam, the BI is still the benchmark.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is. The charter and/or FAQs for the newsgroup. And the FAQs for
>>>>>> a.w.w., which were agreed to by the majority of the regulars here,
>>>>>> classify this as spam.
>>>>>>
>>>>> LIA[SLAP]
>>>> FAQs aren't charters and are not enforceable. Charters in unmoderated
>>>> alt gorups are also uninforceable. Off charter in comp groups, on the
>>>> other hand, is something that can get your news provider's attention.
>>>>
>>> That's funny. I've gotten quite a few hosting of accounts canceled
>>> because I've reported spam.
>>
>> Only if it's real spam. What you're calling spam isn't. There are
>> very specific rules.
>>
>
>And according to the FAQ's in a.w.w, it is spam.

A FAQ is only a list of frequently asked questions, Jerry. It is no
way enforceable and can't change the meaning of the word. >> They're
called alt. for a reason.
>>
>
>Gee, it's the good ones who cancel accounts because I show them the
>spam.

Nope. Only a fool would believe what you're calling spam is actually
spam.




> It is ENFORCEABLE (get a spell checker).

More proof of how you really are? Good! You're showing every newbie
in comp.lang.php that you're an idiot. Hope that's what you wanted.
It's what you're getting.

> And it DOES mean something.

Nothing at all.

>Sorry.

Liar.

> Your arguments don't work.

It's not an argument, it's a fact.

> They're too far out of date.

Good thing is, you don't get to decide.

>
>>
>>> But in this case the op is a troll well-known in a.w.w. He just morphed
>>> names, and it took a little while to catch on (good catch, Karl!).
>>
>> SO? What does that have to do with comp.lang.php?
>
>I didn't start it.

So you're so controlled you simply MUST post to comp.lang.php. Got
it. You're owned, bigtime.


>I'm just trying to show people who Rafael
>Martinez-Minuesa Martinez really is


You're doing just fine at showing he's the holder of your leash. Now
sit like a good little poodle.

> - a troll and a spammer.

SPAM is BI>20. His post was off topic, sure. But not spam. If you're
saying off topic is spam then your posts to comp.lang.php (and
comp.infosystems.www..... are spam too). Difference being: YOU can
lose your account for it faster than he can. Wanna see?
--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com

---

How you look depends on where you go.

---

Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================

Date parsed: 05/01/2008 18:50:20
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:50:20 -0500

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:58:48 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:21:20 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:47:33 GMT, Doug Baiter <doug-baiter@no.where>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>>>> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>> In <XrqdnW_lGbgurODanZ2dnUVZ_u_inZ2d@comcast.com> on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In <C3A2D429.F13D%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs <nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't get it. Why was the original post spam?
>>>>>>>>>> It wasn't. It was many things, including being a
>>>>>>>>>> pathetically-badly disguised festering heap of marketing shite,
>>>>>>>>>> but it wasn't spam.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Those insisting it was spam are merely flaunting their
>>>>>>>>>> cluelessness. A post is *only* defined as being spam when it
>>>>>>>>>> breaches the Breidbart Index. Nobody has provided any evidence
>>>>>>>>>> that that particular bit of midge's effluence has exceeded the BI.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.
>>>>>>>> When was that decided? I must have missed that debate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's been dismissed as virtually meaningless for quite a while, now.
>>>>>>> SPAM has changed, but the index hasn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In a.w.w, ads of any kind are considered SPAM.
>>>>>>>> What aww might or might not consider is about as relevant outside
>>>>>>>> aww as a spider's fart. I'm not reading this thread in aww.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fine. I am reading this in a.w.w., and it is spam here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The BI was adopted as a way of avoiding would-be Usenet vigilantes
>>>>>>>> deciding to classify posts as spam on the basis that they disliked
>>>>>>>> the contents. This discussion shows that the wisdom of that
>>>>>>>> concern still has relevance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you have some meaningless, out of date measurement which doesn't say
>>>>>>> something is spam or not, but only classifies the severity of the SPAM.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right. Try again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Until someone else comes up with a better content-blind objective
>>>>>>>> definition of spam, the BI is still the benchmark.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is. The charter and/or FAQs for the newsgroup. And the FAQs for
>>>>>>> a.w.w., which were agreed to by the majority of the regulars here,
>>>>>>> classify this as spam.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> LIA[SLAP]
>>>>> FAQs aren't charters and are not enforceable. Charters in unmoderated
>>>>> alt gorups are also uninforceable. Off charter in comp groups, on the
>>>>> other hand, is something that can get your news provider's attention.
>>>>>
>>>> That's funny. I've gotten quite a few hosting of accounts canceled
>>>> because I've reported spam.
>>> Only if it's real spam. What you're calling spam isn't. There are
>>> very specific rules.
>>>
>> And according to the FAQ's in a.w.w, it is spam.
>
> A FAQ is only a list of frequently asked questions, Jerry. It is no
> way enforceable and can't change the meaning of the word. >> They're
> called alt. for a reason.

Sorry, you 're about 10 years behind the curve.

>> Gee, it's the good ones who cancel accounts because I show them the
>> spam.
>
> Nope. Only a fool would believe what you're calling spam is actually
> spam.
>
>

Only a fool would believe unsolicited ads where they are not wanted is
not SPAM.

However, it seems you've just called a lot of respected hosting
companies fools.

>
>
>> It is ENFORCEABLE (get a spell checker).
>
> More proof of how you really are? Good! You're showing every newbie
> in comp.lang.php that you're an idiot. Hope that's what you wanted.
> It's what you're getting.
>

Nope. Just that YOU are. Can't even afford a spell checker.

>> And it DOES mean something.
>
> Nothing at all.
>
>> Sorry.
>
> Liar.
>

You're the one calling someone a LIAR! ROFLMAO!

>> Your arguments don't work.
>
> It's not an argument, it's a fact.
>

Show me where it is a FACT. Otherwise, it is just YOUR OPINION. And
YOUR ARGUMENT.

>> They're too far out of date.
>
> Good thing is, you don't get to decide.
>

Neither do you.

>>>> But in this case the op is a troll well-known in a.w.w. He just morphed
>>>> names, and it took a little while to catch on (good catch, Karl!).
>>> SO? What does that have to do with comp.lang.php?
>> I didn't start it.
>
> So you're so controlled you simply MUST post to comp.lang.php. Got
> it. You're owned, bigtime.
>
>

I have the right to defend myself - especially against charges of
criminal activity. Period. You don't like it? Ignore the thread if
you don't like it.


>> I'm just trying to show people who Rafael
>> Martinez-Minuesa Martinez really is
>
>
> You're doing just fine at showing he's the holder of your leash. Now
> sit like a good little poodle.
>

ROFLMAO! You're even more stoopid than most people if you believe that.

And if I called you a fraud and a liar, will you just ignore it? I
think not. What would your employer do if he/she found out?

>> - a troll and a spammer.
>
> SPAM is BI>20. His post was off topic, sure. But not spam. If you're
> saying off topic is spam then your posts to comp.lang.php (and
> comp.infosystems.www..... are spam too). Difference being: YOU can
> lose your account for it faster than he can. Wanna see?


Wrong, Gary. And has been for years. You are woefully out of date.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Date parsed: 05/01/2008 18:57:07
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:57:07 -0500

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:00:21 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 10:14:24 GMT, Doug Baiter <doug-baiter@no.where>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:26:11 -0500, Gary L. Burnore
>>>> <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:47:33 GMT, Doug Baiter <doug-baiter@no.where>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>>>> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>> In <XrqdnW_lGbgurODanZ2dnUVZ_u_inZ2d@comcast.com> on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In <C3A2D429.F13D%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs <nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't get it. Why was the original post spam?
>>>>>>>>>> It wasn't. It was many things, including being a
>>>>>>>>>> pathetically-badly disguised festering heap of marketing shite,
>>>>>>>>>> but it wasn't spam.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Those insisting it was spam are merely flaunting their
>>>>>>>>>> cluelessness. A post is *only* defined as being spam when it
>>>>>>>>>> breaches the Breidbart Index. Nobody has provided any evidence
>>>>>>>>>> that that particular bit of midge's effluence has exceeded the BI.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.
>>>>>>>> When was that decided? I must have missed that debate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's been dismissed as virtually meaningless for quite a while, now.
>>>>>>> SPAM has changed, but the index hasn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In a.w.w, ads of any kind are considered SPAM.
>>>>>>>> What aww might or might not consider is about as relevant outside
>>>>>>>> aww as a spider's fart. I'm not reading this thread in aww.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fine. I am reading this in a.w.w., and it is spam here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The BI was adopted as a way of avoiding would-be Usenet vigilantes
>>>>>>>> deciding to classify posts as spam on the basis that they disliked
>>>>>>>> the contents. This discussion shows that the wisdom of that
>>>>>>>> concern still has relevance.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you have some meaningless, out of date measurement which doesn't say
>>>>>>> something is spam or not, but only classifies the severity of the SPAM.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right. Try again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Until someone else comes up with a better content-blind objective
>>>>>>>> definition of spam, the BI is still the benchmark.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is. The charter and/or FAQs for the newsgroup. And the FAQs for
>>>>>>> a.w.w., which were agreed to by the majority of the regulars here,
>>>>>>> classify this as spam.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> LIA[SLAP]
>>>>> FAQs aren't charters and are not enforceable. Charters in unmoderated
>>>>> alt gorups are also uninforceable. Off charter in comp groups, on the
>>>>> other hand, is something that can get your news provider's attention.
>>>> My bad - didn't look first at the group list. While perfectly
>>>> acceptable in AWW, in a comp group you're right in that its off
>>>> charter which *is* enforcable. Perhaps the zealots in AWW should
>>>> attempt to have it reclassified into a group that has an official
>>>> charter, but in the meantime nobody cares :o)
>>> There's really no such thing as a valid charter in an alt.* group.
>>> Alt.config is a bogus group of morons who want to turn alt into
>>> another form of big8 groups. Never gonna happen. Of course,
>>> moderated groups can and do control content but non-moderated groups
>>> are freeform. Stukkie will just have to learn to use a killfile
>>> there.
>>>
>>>> Nevertheless, please accept my apologies for the mistake.
>>> Accepted. Unfortunately, Jerry won't stop crossposting back to
>>> comp.*.
>> Sorry, Gary.
>
> Liar.
>

Let's see you prove that statement, Gary. Otherwise you're just as bad
as the troll is.

>
>> I have been attacked and maligned by two trolls in a.w.w
>> who have cross-posted to c.l.p. and other newsgroups. I will not let
>> those go away.
>
> Because you're owned. Owned owned owned.
>

Ok, let's tell your employer you're a criminal and a fraud. See if you
like it?

But you're obviously a troll - familiar over a bunch of newsgroups and
message boards on the usenet. A quick search brings up several
complaints about your trolling.

So from now on I'll just ignore you - like the ignorant should be.

>> However, it may not be a problem from at least one of these for much longer.
>
> If he loses an account because you lied to his NSP, I'll see to it he
> gets a free account. Since you've decided to go play NetKKKop, I'll
> take every one of your off charter posts to your provider, comcast. K?
>
>

No lies. Just showing the ISP's what they've done.

And fine - post all you want to comcast. It doesn't bother me, because I
don't spam.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Date parsed: 06/01/2008 04:29:03
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:29:03 -0500

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 6, 5:50 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:58:48 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>> <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:21:20 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>>> <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:47:33 GMT, Doug Baiter <doug-bai...@no.where>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>>>>>> <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In <XrqdnW_lGbgurODanZ2dnUVZ_u_in...@comcast.com> on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In <C3A2D429.F13D%nos...@redcatgroup.co.uk> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>>>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs <nos...@redcatgroup.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't get it. Why was the original post spam?
>>>>>>>>>>>> It wasn't. It was many things, including being a
>>>>>>>>>>>> pathetically-badly disguised festering heap of marketing shite,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but it wasn't spam.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Those insisting it was spam are merely flaunting their
>>>>>>>>>>>> cluelessness. A post is *only* defined as being spam when it
>>>>>>>>>>>> breaches the Breidbart Index. Nobody has provided any evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>> that that particular bit of midge's effluence has exceeded the BI.
>>>>>>>>>>> The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.
>>>>>>>>>> When was that decided? I must have missed that debate.
>>>>>>>>> It's been dismissed as virtually meaningless for quite a while, now.
>>>>>>>>> SPAM has changed, but the index hasn't.
>>>>>>>>>>> In a.w.w, ads of any kind are considered SPAM.
>>>>>>>>>> What aww might or might not consider is about as relevant outside
>>>>>>>>>> aww as a spider's fart. I'm not reading this thread in aww.
>>>>>>>>> Fine. I am reading this in a.w.w., and it is spam here.
>>>>>>>>>> The BI was adopted as a way of avoiding would-be Usenet vigilantes
>>>>>>>>>> deciding to classify posts as spam on the basis that they disliked
>>>>>>>>>> the contents. This discussion shows that the wisdom of that
>>>>>>>>>> concern still has relevance.
>>>>>>>>> So you have some meaningless, out of date measurement which doesn't say
>>>>>>>>> something is spam or not, but only classifies the severity of the SPAM.
>>>>>>>>> Right. Try again.
>>>>>>>>>> Until someone else comes up with a better content-blind objective
>>>>>>>>>> definition of spam, the BI is still the benchmark.
>>>>>>>>> There is. The charter and/or FAQs for the newsgroup. And the FAQs for
>>>>>>>>> a.w.w., which were agreed to by the majority of the regulars here,
>>>>>>>>> classify this as spam.
>>>>>>>> LIA[SLAP]
>>>>>>> FAQs aren't charters and are not enforceable. Charters in unmoderated
>>>>>>> alt gorups are also uninforceable. Off charter in comp groups, on the
>>>>>>> other hand, is something that can get your news provider's attention.
>>>>>> That's funny. I've gotten quite a few hosting of accounts canceled
>>>>>> because I've reported spam.
>>>>> Only if it's real spam. What you're calling spam isn't. There are
>>>>> very specific rules.
>>>> And according to the FAQ's in a.w.w, it is spam.
>>> A FAQ is only a list of frequently asked questions, Jerry. It is no
>>> way enforceable and can't change the meaning of the word. >> They're
>>> called alt. for a reason.
>> Sorry, you 're about 10 years behind the curve.
>>
>>>> Gee, it's the good ones who cancel accounts because I show them the
>>>> spam.
>>> Nope. Only a fool would believe what you're calling spam is actually
>>> spam.
>> Only a fool would believe unsolicited ads where they are not wanted is
>> not SPAM.
>>
>> However, it seems you've just called a lot of respected hosting
>> companies fools.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> It is ENFORCEABLE (get a spell checker).
>>> More proof of how you really are? Good! You're showing every newbie
>>> in comp.lang.php that you're an idiot. Hope that's what you wanted.
>>> It's what you're getting.
>> Nope. Just that YOU are. Can't even afford a spell checker.
>>
>>>> And it DOES mean something.
>>> Nothing at all.
>>>> Sorry.
>>> Liar.
>> You're the one calling someone a LIAR! ROFLMAO!
>>
>>>> Your arguments don't work.
>>> It's not an argument, it's a fact.
>> Show me where it is a FACT. Otherwise, it is just YOUR OPINION. And
>> YOUR ARGUMENT.
>>
>>>> They're too far out of date.
>>> Good thing is, you don't get to decide.
>> Neither do you.
>>
>>>>>> But in this case the op is a troll well-known in a.w.w. He just morphed
>>>>>> names, and it took a little while to catch on (good catch, Karl!).
>>>>> SO? What does that have to do with comp.lang.php?
>>>> I didn't start it.
>>> So you're so controlled you simply MUST post to comp.lang.php. Got
>>> it. You're owned, bigtime.
>> I have the right to defend myself - especially against charges of
>> criminal activity. Period. You don't like it? Ignore the thread if
>> you don't like it.
>>
>>>> I'm just trying to show people who Rafael
>>>> Martinez-Minuesa Martinez really is
>>> You're doing just fine at showing he's the holder of your leash. Now
>>> sit like a good little poodle.
>> ROFLMAO! You're even more stoopid than most people if you believe that.
>>
>> And if I called you a fraud and a liar, will you just ignore it? I
>> think not. What would your employer do if he/she found out?
>>
>>>> - a troll and a spammer.
>>> SPAM is BI>20. His post was off topic, sure. But not spam. If you're
>>> saying off topic is spam then your posts to comp.lang.php (and
>>> comp.infosystems.www..... are spam too). Difference being: YOU can
>>> lose your account for it faster than he can. Wanna see?
>> Wrong, Gary. And has been for years. You are woefully out of date.
>
> You DON'T get to say what SPAM is, you pitiful SCAMMER.
> The Usenet is not yours and there are far more knowledgeable and
> experienced people than you who know much better than you.
> If you were not so arrogant and had just a little bit of common sense
> you'd listen to them.
>

And neither do you, trolling fraud. But the newsgroup regulars do. And
the majority of them have classified your posts as SPAM.

Sorry, troll.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================