Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:43:32 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:54:25 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:18:24 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>>> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:42:45 GMT, Doug Baiter <doug-baiter@no.where>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3 Jan 2008 18:40:30 GMT, John Bokma <john@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andy Jacobs <nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Let's say I post the following:
>>>>>>>>> Let's say that next time you do so on purpose I (and probably several
>>>>>>>>> others) /will/ report it as spam. You're quite the hypocrite with your
>>>>>>>>> nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In short: foad, thank you.
>>>>>>>> D'oh! Sorry John, but I don't recollect the election where you won the
>>>>>>>> right to dictate what gets posted here.
>>>>>>> It's off charter in at least one of the comp groups. Do you care? Bet
>>>>>>> not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [snip advert]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is that spam?
>>>>>>> Advertisements aren't always spam. Now, if you were to ask if it were
>>>>>>> an asanine thing to do, the answer would be yes. Do you care? Bet
>>>>>>> not.
>>>>>> Forget Master Baiter. He's a troll who would love to see a.w.w. go to
>>>>>> the spammers.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Your post is off topic in comp.lang.php as well, Jerry. The least you
>>>>> could do is drop it in the crosspost. When you don't, you're just as
>>>>> bad as him.
>>>> Sorry, Gary,
>>> Liar.
>>>
>>>> I just wanted to let everyone where he crossposted be aware
>>>> that he is a known troll.
>>> All you're doing is showing yourself to be the fool. I, for one, know
>>> how to ignore him. You're STILL crossposting so you're not at all
>>> sorry.
>> Sorry, Gary,
>
> Liar.
>
>> I have the right to defend myself, also. If you don't like
>> it, you can ignore the thread.
>
> Same thing for you. You can ignore the posts you don't like instead
> of calling them spam to try to silence that which you do not like to
> read.
>

I will call spam what it is.

So you can just ---- off, troll. I don't give a ---- what you and your
spam friends think.

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

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:50:20 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> 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.
>
> Nope. Not at all, Jerry. Frequently Asked Questions are QUESTIONS AND
> ANSWERS, not an inforceable doc.
>

Guess again, troll. ISP's have closed accounts of your spammer friends
because they improperly posted spam to alt newsgroups.

>
>>>> 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.
>
> Ok, then you'll have no problem when comcast nukes you. Cool.
>

No problem at all - but they won't, because I don't spam - unlike you.

>
>>> 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.
>
>
> Show me where FAQ means anything other than frequently asked
> quesitons.
>

Who gives a flying ---- what you think? You are nobody.

>>>> They're too far out of date.
>>> Good thing is, you don't get to decide.
>>>
>> Neither do you.
>
> Actually, -------, I do.
>

You wish. Who do you think you are - God? You're just a little -------
with a keyboard. Nothing more.

>
>>>>>> 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
>
> And you have every right to have your posting priv's at giganews nuked
> for off charter posts to a comp group.
>

Like this posting if yours is off topic? Maybe you need to get nuked?

Go ahead and try it, stoopid. You don't have the power.

>
>>> 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?
>
> Yep. Because I know you're a fool.
>

Yea, I guess you're used to it. It seems a lot of people have called
you that.

You're just a troll - and even more stoopid than most trolls.

>> I think not.
>
> You missed a comma. You surely meant "I think, NOT.", since you're
> not thinking.
>

Nope, that's your line.

>
>> What would your employer do if he/she found out?
>
> Nothing, unless of course I really WAS a fraud. Are you?
>
>

Ah, but you've already proven you're a fraud. So no problem.

But how much do greeters at WalMart make, anyway?

>
>>>> - 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.
>
> Liar.
>

Wrong again, Gary. Has been for years.
>
>> You are woefully out of date.
>
> You are woefully outgunned.


Not by you. You couldn't outgun a 4 year old with a pea shooter.

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

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:
>>>>>>>>> ---- Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In <XrqdnW_lGbgurODanZ2dnUVZ_u_in...@comcast.com> on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> ---- 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
==================

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 6, 4:58 am, 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:
>>>>>>> ---- Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>> In <XrqdnW_lGbgurODanZ2dnUVZ_u_in...@comcast.com> on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ---- 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. And this is.
>>
>>>> Hosting companies DO pay attention to spam
>>>> in alt groups, also. And the good ones don't keep spammers around.
>>> The good ones would ignore frivolus complaints. The good ones know
>>> that FAQ stands for Frequently asked Questions, not an inforcable
>>> document and that charters mean nothing in non-moderated alt groups.
>>> They're called alt. for a reason.
>> Gee, it's the good ones who cancel accounts because I show them the
>> spam. It is ENFORCEABLE (get a spell checker). And it DOES mean something.
>>
>> Sorry. Your arguments don't work. They're too far out of date.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> 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. I'm just trying to show people who Rafael
>> Martinez-Minuesa Martinez really is - a troll and a spammer.
>
> You did start it.
> It's there for everyone to see.
>

Wrong answer, Rafael. You started it by spamming several newsgroups.

Sorry, liar and fraud. You're just a troll.

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

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:57:07 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> 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:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ---- Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In <XrqdnW_lGbgurODanZ2dnUVZ_u_inZ2d@comcast.com> on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---- 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 )
>>>>> 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.
>
> You're doing it for me, Jerry. YOU are still posting to comp.lang.php
> and he's not "making you do it". YOU are the one posting off charter.
> YOU. Not him.
>

And your posts are on topic? ROFLMAO! Pot-Kettle-Black.

>> 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?
>
> Go for it, -------. I've been called far worse. My employer is
> DataBasix.com. OOPS! Too bad for you.
>

Oh, you mean the one who can't even keep a website running? ROFLMAO!

>> 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.
>
> Poor little ----. You should surely soon be quoting that Jerry
> Terranson website and stepping right into kookdom. Once you find it,
> you'll see why I feel safe in saying that people who make up false
> ---- about you don't matter. YOU're the one who's making a fool of
> yourself.
>

A lot more than just one website, troll.

>
>> 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.
>
> Liar.
>

Sorry, troll. No lies.

>> And fine - post all you want to comcast. It doesn't bother me, because I
>> don't spam.
>
> You post off charter. You're doing it right now. Prove otherwise.
>

And your post is on charter? ROFLMAO!

Pot-Kettle-Black.


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

On 6/1/08 2:26 pm, in article cM6dnQVWUPLFeB3anZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@comcast.com,
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:

<snip>

> You wish. Who do you think you are - God? You're just a little -------
> with a keyboard. Nothing more.

Here's the deal. I seriously think that nobody in uk.net.web.authoring is
interested. How about you stop following up to this group unless someone
here expresses an absolute desire to see your ramblings.

Seems reasonable.

Maybe someone out there knows if there are any grounds for complaint to his
SP based on the fact that his posts are starting to become offensive? Or
are there any other grounds for complaint where we really could get him
dropped? I'm not talking about armchair law, I'm talking about hard facts.

If that IS the case, who do we complain to? I'll log one this afternoon.

--
Andy Jacobs
http://www.redcatmedia.co.uk

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 6, 5:00 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 10:14:24 GMT, Doug Baiter <doug-bai...@no.where>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:26:11 -0500, Gary L. Burnore
>>>> <gburn...@databasix.com> 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:
>>>>>>> ---- Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>> In <XrqdnW_lGbgurODanZ2dnUVZ_u_in...@comcast.com> on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ---- 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.
>>>> 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 )
>>> 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. 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.
> You are the one that attacked me.
> Funny that being a SCAMMER, you have the nerve to attack honest
> people.
> Proof that besides being a scammer, you are an idiotic moron as well.
>
>> However, it may not be a problem from at least one of these for much longer.
> Kiss my ----, Jerry.
>

You'd like that, wouldn't you, Rafael. But I'm not into boys.

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

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:12:42 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:

>Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:53:14 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I have no choice but to tell everyone that:
>>>
>>> Rafael Martinez-Minuesa Martinez (inf
>>
>> trying to get him spammed in email, eh Jerry? Very lame.
>
>Nope, just exposing a fraud for who he really is.

Psst. You're ignoring me, remember?
--
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
================================================== =========================

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:16:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:

>RafaMinu wrote:
>> On Jan 6, 4:53 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:

>>> makes completely unfounded accusations against other people. He is a
>>> liar and cannot support his lies with facts. He is the fraud here.
>>
>> Sue me, then.
>>
>
>You'd like that, wouldn't you? But I don't need to sue you. There are
>other ways to handle people like you. I prefer the legal ways.

So you're a k00k, eh stuckkie? Figures. Since when has suing become
illegal?
--
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
================================================== =========================

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:26:45 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:

>Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:50:20 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Nope. Not at all, Jerry. Frequently Asked Questions are QUESTIONS AND
>> ANSWERS, not an inforceable doc.
>>
>
>Guess again, troll.

Still ignoring me, I see. How's that going? Why can't you just stop
adding comp.lang.php?

> ISP's have closed accounts of your spammer friends
>because they improperly posted spam to alt newsgroups.

Liar I've no spammer friends. I've had the same two accounts for
more than 13 years. Too bad you can't say the same.

>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Ok, then you'll have no problem when comcast nukes you. Cool.
>>
>
>No problem at all - but they won't, because I don't spam - unlike you.

Yet another lie. Got any proof I've spammed? Looks like those
calling you a fraud are right.

>
>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Show me where FAQ means anything other than frequently asked
>> quesitons.
>>
>
>Who gives a flying ---- what you think?

You obviously do. And, since you cna't answer the question, you
obviously know I'm right.

> You are nobody.

You are so owned.

>>>>> They're too far out of date.
>>>> Good thing is, you don't get to decide.
>>>>
>>> Neither do you.
>>
>> Actually, -------, I do.
>>
>
>You wish. Who do you think you are - God? You're just a little -------
>with a keyboard. Nothing more.
>
>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>
>> And you have every right to have your posting priv's at giganews nuked
>> for off charter posts to a comp group.
>>
>
>Like this posting if yours is off topic? Maybe you need to get nuked?

Let's review. You post crap to comp.lang.php, I ask you to stop. I'm
not crossposting to comp.lang.php, I'm already here. OOPs, you lose
again.

>Go ahead and try it, stoopid.

Ok.


> You don't have the power.

Guess we'll see. Maybe I do, maybe I don't. I DO know that, at
minimum, you're showing EVERYONE in comp.lang.php that you have
1. No self control
2. No CLUE
C. No respect for anyone ELSE in comp.lang.php

Thanks for showing your true colors!

>
>>
>>>> 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?
>>
>> Yep. Because I know you're a fool.
>>
>
>Yea, I guess you're used to it.

Yeah, I've seen a lot of fools in my days. You're right up there at
the top.


>It seems a lot of people have called you that.

IKWIABWAY noted.

>You're just a troll - and even more stoopid than most trolls.
>
>>> I think not.
>>
>> You missed a comma. You surely meant "I think, NOT.", since you're
>> not thinking.
>>
>
>Nope, that's your line.

IKWIABWAY #2. Gonna try for two?

>
>>
>>> What would your employer do if he/she found out?
>>
>> Nothing, unless of course I really WAS a fraud. Are you?
>>
>>
>
>Ah, but you've already proven you're a fraud. So no problem.

There it is, #3. Good job. I knew you could do it.
>
>But how much do greeters at WalMart make, anyway?

That's it? The best you've got. ----, stuckkie you're lame.

>
>>
>>>>> - 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.
>>
>> Liar.
>>
>
>Wrong again, Gary. Has been for years.


You can say that as many times as you like and you're still wrong.
Besisdes, unlike you, I really do have the power to decide. You're
still not even smart enough to know why. Funny, that.

>>
>>> You are woefully out of date.
>>
>> You are woefully outgunned.
>
>
>Not by you. You couldn't outgun a 4 year old with a pea shooter.

IKWIABWAY #4. Gotta be a record.

Oh, how's that "ignoring me" going?
--
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
================================================== =========================