On 3/1/08 5:32 pm, in article woSdnZsPvMPzgeDanZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@comcast.com,
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:

> You did not start this discussion with usability issues. You started it
> with SPAM. Plain and simple. And now you SPAM more.
>
> You aren't going to find anyone to discuss SPAM with you.
>
> And with that attitude, you won't find anyone to discuss ANYTHING with
> you - unless it's another spammer.

I don't get it. Why was the original post spam? Are you saying that there
are no jobs available and that the 'quoted' text is the prime reason for the
post?

Let's say I post the following:

Freelance designers wanted with experience of

* CSS
* xhtml
* Photoshop
* php/MySQL

Redcat Media are a leading edge web design and development agency based in
Hampshire in nice offices with free parking and we're also very good at
search engine optimisation.

Is that spam? By putting such a blatant plug for my company as an example,
is that double spam?

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

RafaMinu wrote:
>
> Please stay focused on the main topic of the thread I started,

This is Usenet. We are free to discuss your post in any way we see fit.

> that is, Usability Job Opportunities.

The way we see it, the main topic of the thread you started is not
Usability Job Opportunities at all. If it were, you would have made some
additional comments about the field in general, or the ad in particular.
Regardless of your intentions, you came off as the HFI guy spamming Usenet.

> Otherwise I ask you politely to go away and pester someone else.

Perhaps you should quit while you're behind.

--
Berg

Andy Jacobs wrote:
> On 3/1/08 5:32 pm, in article woSdnZsPvMPzgeDanZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@comcast.com,
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> You did not start this discussion with usability issues. You started it
>> with SPAM. Plain and simple. And now you SPAM more.
>>
>> You aren't going to find anyone to discuss SPAM with you.
>>
>> And with that attitude, you won't find anyone to discuss ANYTHING with
>> you - unless it's another spammer.
>
> I don't get it. Why was the original post spam? Are you saying that there
> are no jobs available and that the 'quoted' text is the prime reason for the
> post?
>
> Let's say I post the following:
>
> Freelance designers wanted with experience of
>
> * CSS
> * xhtml
> * Photoshop
> * php/MySQL
>
> Redcat Media are a leading edge web design and development agency based in
> Hampshire in nice offices with free parking and we're also very good at
> search engine optimisation.
>
> Is that spam? By putting such a blatant plug for my company as an example,
> is that double spam?
>

Because ads are not wanted on a.w.w. It's in the FAQ's. That's what
a.w.w.a is for.

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

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.

--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 3, 6:32 pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>> On Jan 3, 5:38 pm, "dE|_" <dee-e-...@crackguitar.com> wrote:
>>>>> "RafaMinu" <rafa-...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> Since you are unable to contribute anything positive to the thread,
>>>>> I'm going to add a few more links:
>>>>> Job Opening for Web Accessibility QA
>>>>> If you or someone you know has good experience and knowledge in Web
>>>>> Accessibility, and wants a good job in California (Silicon Valley),
>>>>> please contact me, Dennis, at webaxe at gmail dot com. The position is
>>>>> in the QA department for a company that does a financial web
>>>>> application.
>>>>> http://webaxe.___________-qa.html
>>>>> Open Posts
>>>>> MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
>>>>> Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
>>>>> Web Accessibility Engineer
>>>>> European Research Consortium on Informatics and Mathematics (ERCIM)
>>>>> Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
>>>>> Web Accessibility and Ageing Consultant
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/_________ecruitment/
>>>>> Now, if you want to discuss these postings and/or contribute with
>>>>> other links, please do so.
>>>>> Otherwise stay off this thread and take your off-topic deviations
>>>>> somewhere else.
>>>> Now you've just gone and got your fingers up in the air in rebellion like a
>>>> kid. "F*ck you I won't do what you tell me"
>>> Up yours ¡¡¡
>> You did not start this discussion with usability issues. You started it
>> with SPAM. Plain and simple. And now you SPAM more.
>>
>> You aren't going to find anyone to discuss SPAM with you.
>>
>> And with that attitude, you won't find anyone to discuss ANYTHING with
>> you - unless it's another spammer.
>
> It is your attitude the one that is spammish.
> Please, stick to the topic at hand, that is, accesibility Job
> Oportunities.
> You still haven't written a word about that and it is kind of tiring
> to read your repetitive spam-like gibberish nonsense.
>

The topic at hand is your SPAMMING. We are discussing it.

This is usenet. We'll discuss your SPAM any way we want.

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

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.

--
DG

---- 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.

In a.w.w, ads of any kind are considered SPAM. Same with some of the
other groups he's posted to.

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

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:57:04 +0100, ---- Gaughan <usenet@gaelweb.co.uk>
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:
a) Only a measure of severity IMO, not wether or not something is spam.
b) Not the sole definitive definition of spam on usenet.
--
Rik Wasmus

On 3/1/08 6:40 pm, in article Xns9A1A80F09970Bcastleamber@130.133.1.4, "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.

Sorry, did I miss the news about you being made god of usenet?

I was asking a genuine question about a thread which seems to have got out
of hand. I post regularly and even my signature is concise and to the
point.

Now if you can't answer that question properly or conduct yourself with some
humility and civility you might want to foad yourself.

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

RafaMinu <rafaminu@hotmail.com> wrote in message:
197cc130-fc8c-4c41-8042-d31af37758cf...oglegroups.com,

> You have to understand that an accessible web is good for all.
>
> Keep in mind that organisations with web sites that are inaccessible
> to people with disabilities risk being sued under the 1995 Disability
> Discrimination Act.
> In a recent survey of 1,000 web sites carried out by the Disability
> Rights Commission (DRC), over 80 percent failed basic accessibility
> tests, so it looks like most companies are in legal peril.
>
> In essence, the law says that you may not discriminate against
> disabled people by refusing to provide them with services that are
> otherwise generally available.

First of all, this is all old news and the particular law you cite
applies only to the UK.

In the US we have the ADA. And that specifies that one should make
"reasonable accommodation." That can vary quite a bit in interpretation,
or not be applicable at all, depending on the web site in question.

Of course here in the US, our government is a lot less inclined to do
social engineering by putting requirements on private businesses. And
that's the way most people here want it.

--
Red