- Thread starter
- #21
M
Mart
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
With apologies to W Shakespeare
Mart (ex traffic warden)
"Arturo Seis" <sixpencedearturo@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:OoNqHQrCJHA.1632@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Mart wrote:
>> In line below :-
>>
>> "Arturo Seis" <sixpencedearturo@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:OjgO6MVCJHA.2272@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> Mart wrote:
>>>> "Arturo Seis" wrote in message
>>>> news:uNPe$bUCJHA.3668@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Save as e.g. bckupvxd.bat
>>>>
>>>> etc, etc,
>>>>
>>>> <snipped>
>>>>
>>>> Just when you think you're winning.
>>>>
>>>> Mart
>>>
>>> How do you suppose the spam way down the
>>> bottom, that you have to scroll
>>> down to see, affects anything, Mart?
>>
>> Probably doesn't, except that it has an active url in the last line.
>> If jw's made even one sale as a result, then it's been worth his
>> efforts.
>>
>
> This is what I mean by 'desperate'. Anyone going to that much effort to
> find
> the url and click it, will just look at the OP anyway.
>
>>> Unless there is some point about
>>> snipping it I'm unaware of.
>>
>> Saves it being perpetuated - at least by a factor of one.
>
> This is meaningless and I don't believe you're incapable of realizing
> this -
> therefore you are just waffling to avoid admitting it.
>
>>
>>> I think you'd have to put forward a pretty
>>> desperate argument to justify this. Since that
>>> same email address has been
>>> in use for this since at least January,
>>
>> Hardly a 'desperate argument' but even you went to the trouble of
>> deleting it in your first post - hence, model amunition for my
>> example to Harry. Justification enough?
>>
>
> There is no need to scroll to see the url in Harry's response. Not that it
> makes enough difference to justify a crusade. You talk like you have no
> conception of the scale of the spam problem. It is one thing continuing a
> pattern of behaviour because it has become habit - we all do that, it is
> part of the Human condition - but when you abuse others and make a serious
> effort to justify it, that is what the incident reduces to not about
> spam,
> but about telling others what to do on the flimsiest pretext. So you might
> want to step back and take another look. No, one fewer - especially
> considering it will be such an idiot that it is astonishing how that
> person
> managed to find the url and then extract and click it - makes no
> difference
> worth it in any form of mathematics you wish to use. The only difference
> it
> makes is in terms of perpetuating behaviour based solely on maintaining a
> reassuring personal stagnation.
>
>>> I've reported it. Maybe that will
>>> achieve something.
>>
>> Let's hope so. (Even more justification?)
>
> Not sure what that means. But if it's what it looks like - no. You can't
> really have 'even more' than none. What is required is Microsoft and Yahoo
> (and other parties with actual power to do something about it and an
> interest in doing so) to block it and more to the point close a known
> account that has been spamming since at least January. Acting like a
> typecast traffic warden doesn't help.
>
>>
>>> If it does not, well, perhaps I should see if Don Quixote
>>> is still available?
>>
>> So it's a lost cause then? Oh well, I wont bother in future.
>>
>
> Witty bit of sarcasm there, Mart? You should read 'The Sugitive'.
>
>> OK Harry! - Seems you can do as you wish. Although I'm not too sure
>> if it breaches the "Rules/Code of Conduct"
>> http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.mspx
>>
>
> So, I take it your dad's no longer alive.
>
>
> Arturo
>
>
>
With apologies to W Shakespeare
Mart (ex traffic warden)
"Arturo Seis" <sixpencedearturo@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:OoNqHQrCJHA.1632@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Mart wrote:
>> In line below :-
>>
>> "Arturo Seis" <sixpencedearturo@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:OjgO6MVCJHA.2272@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> Mart wrote:
>>>> "Arturo Seis" wrote in message
>>>> news:uNPe$bUCJHA.3668@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Save as e.g. bckupvxd.bat
>>>>
>>>> etc, etc,
>>>>
>>>> <snipped>
>>>>
>>>> Just when you think you're winning.
>>>>
>>>> Mart
>>>
>>> How do you suppose the spam way down the
>>> bottom, that you have to scroll
>>> down to see, affects anything, Mart?
>>
>> Probably doesn't, except that it has an active url in the last line.
>> If jw's made even one sale as a result, then it's been worth his
>> efforts.
>>
>
> This is what I mean by 'desperate'. Anyone going to that much effort to
> find
> the url and click it, will just look at the OP anyway.
>
>>> Unless there is some point about
>>> snipping it I'm unaware of.
>>
>> Saves it being perpetuated - at least by a factor of one.
>
> This is meaningless and I don't believe you're incapable of realizing
> this -
> therefore you are just waffling to avoid admitting it.
>
>>
>>> I think you'd have to put forward a pretty
>>> desperate argument to justify this. Since that
>>> same email address has been
>>> in use for this since at least January,
>>
>> Hardly a 'desperate argument' but even you went to the trouble of
>> deleting it in your first post - hence, model amunition for my
>> example to Harry. Justification enough?
>>
>
> There is no need to scroll to see the url in Harry's response. Not that it
> makes enough difference to justify a crusade. You talk like you have no
> conception of the scale of the spam problem. It is one thing continuing a
> pattern of behaviour because it has become habit - we all do that, it is
> part of the Human condition - but when you abuse others and make a serious
> effort to justify it, that is what the incident reduces to not about
> spam,
> but about telling others what to do on the flimsiest pretext. So you might
> want to step back and take another look. No, one fewer - especially
> considering it will be such an idiot that it is astonishing how that
> person
> managed to find the url and then extract and click it - makes no
> difference
> worth it in any form of mathematics you wish to use. The only difference
> it
> makes is in terms of perpetuating behaviour based solely on maintaining a
> reassuring personal stagnation.
>
>>> I've reported it. Maybe that will
>>> achieve something.
>>
>> Let's hope so. (Even more justification?)
>
> Not sure what that means. But if it's what it looks like - no. You can't
> really have 'even more' than none. What is required is Microsoft and Yahoo
> (and other parties with actual power to do something about it and an
> interest in doing so) to block it and more to the point close a known
> account that has been spamming since at least January. Acting like a
> typecast traffic warden doesn't help.
>
>>
>>> If it does not, well, perhaps I should see if Don Quixote
>>> is still available?
>>
>> So it's a lost cause then? Oh well, I wont bother in future.
>>
>
> Witty bit of sarcasm there, Mart? You should read 'The Sugitive'.
>
>> OK Harry! - Seems you can do as you wish. Although I'm not too sure
>> if it breaches the "Rules/Code of Conduct"
>> http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.mspx
>>
>
> So, I take it your dad's no longer alive.
>
>
> Arturo
>
>
>