F
H
HIram
None of that is even poker software?
If you are looking for some free poker programs, try this download
hub:
http://www.WorldPokerClinic.com/downloads.html
If you are looking for some free poker programs, try this download
hub:
http://www.WorldPokerClinic.com/downloads.html
?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=F6ran_Andersson?=
HIram said:
Did neither the spammy content or the spammy selection of newsgroups
hint you to the fact that the spam was spam?
C
Cor Ligthert[MVP]
Goran,
As Herfried always writes: Please remove the spam from your replies
otherwise you are helping to distrubute the spam?
Cor
As Herfried always writes: Please remove the spam from your replies
otherwise you are helping to distrubute the spam?
Cor
P
Peter Duniho
Cor said:
Herfried? I'm curious...are you referring to Herfried Wagner? I'd
never heard of him (sorry if that's heresy
) until I used Google totry to figure out who you're talking about. Then I found this page of his:
http://dotnet.mvps.org/misc/articles/msnewsintro/
Even in poorly-translated English (courtesy Google's translation:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://dotnet.mvps.org&langpair=de|en&hl=en&ie=UTF8)
I'm left with the impression that his article should be mandatory
reading for anyone posting to any newsgroup.
I didn't see anythingin that article about spam, but given what he wrote there, it's not hard
to believe he'd write what you quoted in your post.
Makes me wonder if I should be clamoring for better English translations
of the rest of his stuff.
Anyway, I didn't have anything useful to write about C# or .NET, so
instead I've perpetuated this spam thread. But hey, at least I didn't
quote the spam.
Pete
C
Cor Ligthert[MVP]
Peter,
This newsgroup has so many people answering (even when the question is
completely answered) that there is mostly nothing to answer anymore. However
I often look at the answers, and if there something I can add, I do that.
However don't ask in a German/English VB.Net newsgroups who is Herfried, the
same is for the C# German newsgroup. You are directly a newbie. Because of
the crosspostings (but not alone because that) he is probably known by all
C# MVP's.
It is hard to find questions given by Herfried only by searching his name,
because he has probably contributed more to the dotNet newsgroup then
probably all regular C# MVP's together including Jon (Skeet) and Nick
(Paladino).
I wanted by writing this give Herfried the credits he deserves.
Cor
This newsgroup has so many people answering (even when the question is
completely answered) that there is mostly nothing to answer anymore. However
I often look at the answers, and if there something I can add, I do that.
However don't ask in a German/English VB.Net newsgroups who is Herfried, the
same is for the C# German newsgroup. You are directly a newbie. Because of
the crosspostings (but not alone because that) he is probably known by all
C# MVP's.
It is hard to find questions given by Herfried only by searching his name,
because he has probably contributed more to the dotNet newsgroup then
probably all regular C# MVP's together including Jon (Skeet) and Nick
(Paladino).
I wanted by writing this give Herfried the credits he deserves.
Cor
?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=F6ran_Andersson?=
Cor said:
What are you talking about? You have no idea what's happening, do you?
P
Peter Duniho
Göran Andersson said:
He's talking about the fact that you replied to spam (not a good idea),
and in doing so _quoted_ the entire spam (also not a good idea), and
even managed to include every newsgroup that was posted in the original
spam (also not a good idea).
No offense intended, but IMHO Cor's reply to you was not only right at
the mark, it's remarkably similar to messages I myself have posted in
reply to others who have replied to spam, especially when they quote the
spam.
Please don't reply to spam, and if you must reply please do not quote
the spam in your reply. Otherwise, you're just allowing the spam to
reproduce.
Pete
?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=F6ran_Andersson?=
Peter said:
I didn't reply to spam. I replied to a reply to spam.
I quoted the entire reply, but none of the spam.
That's just because they were all included in the reply to the spam that
I replied to.
How can you say that when he was obviously totally wrong? Do you want me
to quote the spam message so that you can see for yourself?
Which is why I wonder why hid did write such a thing, as I didn't reply
to spam.
I don't.
I don't.
P
Peter Duniho
Göran Andersson said:
The post you quoted sure looked a lot like spam to me.
Of course, part of the problem is that you replied to a thread that was
in fact spam, meaning the previous posts never actually showed up in
this newsgroup on my news server. Because of that, I can't tell whether
you replied to the spam that started the thread, or some subsequent spam.
It's hard for to tell, since my news server successfully filtered out
the posts that were actually spam (and note that this includes the post
to which you replied...it might not have been the original spam, but it
sure was spam-like enough to get filtered just like the start of the
thread).
In any case, surely at a minimum all of this illustrates just how little
good can come from replying to any thread that was initiated by spam.
Whichever message you replied to, and whether you think the one you
replied to was actually spam or not (I think it was, but you think it's
wasn't), it just wasn't a thread to which any reply was necessary or
beneficial.
Pete
?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=F6ran_Andersson?=
Peter said:
Ok, here is the spam message:
From: (e-mail address removed)
Newsgroups:
sci.math,alt.religion.scientology,rec.gambling.poker,microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Latest software here!!!!!
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:51:26 -0000
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.99.227.70
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1189882286 20187 127.0.0.1 (15 Sep 2007
18:51:26 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: (e-mail address removed)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:51:26 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
rv:1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070725 Firefox/2.0.0.6,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: (e-mail address removed)
Injection-Info: 22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=209.99.227.70;
posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0
Path:
TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTFEEDS02.phx.gbl!tornado.fastwebnet.it!itgate.net!news.panservice.it!news.germany.com!postnews.google.com!22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Xref: TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp:522058
http://freesoftwareupgrades.blogspot.com/
And here is the reply (that I replied to):
From: HIram <[email protected]>
Newsgroups:
sci.math,alt.religion.scientology,rec.gambling.poker,microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Latest software here!!!!!
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:03:00 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.81.115.127
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1189890181 24011 127.0.0.1 (15 Sep 2007
21:03:01 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: (e-mail address removed)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:03:01 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1;
..NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; IEMB3; IEMB3),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: (e-mail address removed)
Injection-Info: r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=207.81.115.127;
posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0
Path:
TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTFEEDS01.phx.gbl!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.glorb.com!postnews.google.com!r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Xref: TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp:522070
None of that is even poker software?
If you are looking for some free poker programs, try this download
hub:
http://www.WorldPokerClinic.com/downloads.html
Now, doesn't that look like a reply?
P
Peter Duniho
Göran Andersson said:
Um. I have a web browser. I can get to Google Groups. You don't need
to perpetuate this thread by posting _complete copies_ of both spam
messages.
You are only compounding the problem.
Whether it looks like a reply is irrelevant. It _also_ looks like spam.
There's no rule that says that spam is only found in the first message
of any thread.
You should not quote spam, regardless of where it is found. You really
shouldn't even reply to it, but if you cannot resist the temptation you
should not quote it.
Pete
?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=F6ran_Andersson?=
Peter said:
I quoted the messages so that you could see for yourself. I'm sorry that
you are not interrested in facts, only opinions.
P
Peter Duniho
Göran Andersson said:
And as I pointed out, you need not have done that, since I had already
seen all of the messages in the thread, via Google Groups. Even if you
had wanted to help me find the messages, the right way to do it would
have been to post links to the Google Groups copies, rather than copying
the entire spam messages back to this newsgroup.
I find that part of this whole thing very ironic, since the whole thread
at this point is about the question of whether one should quote spam.
So what did you do? You quoted TWO spam messages, in the process of
arguing whatever point it is you're trying to make.
I am interested in the facts. However, there's not any disagreement on
the facts. We agree on what messages were posted. There's only
disagreement on the opinions related to those facts.
I'm sorry that you don't see the need to avoid helping spammers sell
their wares. It's my personal opinion that quoting off-topic
advertisements is a really, REALLY bad idea.
You seem to disagree, and I suppose that's that. I'm not interested in
a huge argument about the issue, and you seem more interested in
inventing a disagreement about "the facts" than in listening to the
identical opinion stated here by two newsgroup regulars, and a third
person by proxy. We all agree that you should not have quoted the spam
but, since that's clearly a subjective issue, there are no "facts" that
could be used to persuade you.
If you will not be persuaded by the concepts of being a good community
neighbor, there is nothing left to do but just drop the thread.
Pete
?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=F6ran_Andersson?=
Peter said:
If you really saw all the messages, why do you keep saying that I did
reply to spam?
From the way that you were arguing I was under the distinct impression
that you never saw the messages, and that you therefore didn't know what
you were talking about. I quoted the messages so that you could take
part of all the facts, the original spam message, and the reply by
HIram. That's one spam message and one reply.
What is your opinion then? That I am not allowed to reply to messages in
a thread that happened to start with a spam message, but you are?
Now you are being ridiculous. Do you really think that I posted to help
spammers?
I'm only so concerned with the facts because you keep ignoring them.
How does your "regularity" have anything to do with the matter? Does it
make your opinion worth more? If that's really how you see yourself,
that is rather frightening.
Why do you keep repeating that lie? I didn't quote anything from the
spam message. I have shown you the messages, but still you act as you
never saw them?
The facts are the messages that was posted. You say that there is no
disagreement on the facts, but that's not worth much as long as you keep
ignoring the facts.
If I'm going to be met by lies and slander whenever I try to act like a
good community neighbour, it will rather quickly stop me from trying.
What is your purpose with treating me this way?
P
Peter Duniho
Göran Andersson said:
Because in my opinion you did.
No. First, my opinion does not in any way address what is "allowed".
This is a freely open forum, and every person is "allowed" to post
whatever they like.
Secondly, this isn't about replying to messages in the thread. It's
about replying to _spam_ in the thread.
Do I think that you intended to help spammers? No, nor did I ever write
anything like that. Do I think that you DID help a spammer? Yes.
Not true at all, and it's not productive to accuse me of doing so.
I don't know why you see the need to be so snide. Not only do you seem
to be taking the whole issue very personally, you seem to want to turn
everything about it into an opportunity for a personal attack against
me. Again, I don't think that's a very productive approach.
Now, as far as "regularity" goes, it was simply a comment meant to
distinguish between those who replied in person (the "regulars") and the
person who didn't reply per se, but who was referenced as having the
same opinion. It's not at all about "how I see myself", and I don't see
why you would jump to the conclusion that it was. It's just about
acknowledging that even though I reference three people who appear to be
in agreement, only two made an actual reply in this newsgroup.
But even if it was more than that, in what way is that "frightening"? I
don't know about you, but I definitely hold the opinion of someone I've
seen post on a regular basis in higher regard, especially when I
generally tend to find that person's posts to be of high quality. I
suppose you take a more egalitarian approach, treating everyone's
opinion with equal disdain, as you're doing here? I guess that's fine,
but I don't see why it should be so scary to you for someone to have an
opinion different from yours.
I'm not clear on what you found so frightening about that prospect, even
if it were true (and it wasn't in this case).
What lie?
I disagree.
You obviously believe that you didn't, but Cor and I have observed that,
at least in our opinion, the second message was every bit as much a spam
message as the first. And there is no question that you replied to the
second message.
The question of whether post to which you replied is spam or not is NOT
a factual matter. You have no more basis to claim that it is factually
not a spam message than I have to claim that it factually is a spam
message. Further, if you do want to go down the road of whether you can
make a factual claim regarding whether that post was spam, the post
meets two very basic criteria for spam: it's advertising and it was
posted to a wide variety of unrelated newsgroups.
Ergo, this is a disagreement of opinion, not of facts.
I do not act as though I never saw them. I have several times explained
that I have, and it is not productive for you to continue claiming that
I haven't, or that I "act" as if I haven't.
I do not ignore the facts. I have a different interpretation of them
than you, based on opinion. As I said, it's clear that we don't
disagree on the facts, only on the things that are a matter of opinion.
In what way were you trying to act like a good community neighbor? And
what lies and slander were posted? All of the "lies and slander" you've
accused me of so far are simply a matter of you misunderstanding and
misinterpreting the interpretation of the facts at hand.
Treating you this way? Please go back and read the reply to which you
got all hot and bothered. I feel it was quite polite and made my point
quite clear. My purpose was simply to request that you (and others by
implication) not reply to spam, and not quote spam when replying. It's
a very simple request and I was not at all rude when I made it.
I still am not clear on where your hostility comes from, and especially
at this point when all you really need to do is agree to disagree with
respect to the opinion of whether the post to which you replied was
spam. It's a fair disagreement, but you continue to take offense and to
accuse me of all sorts of things that I have not done.
At the same time, you post inflammatory statements like "you have no
idea what's happening" and accuse me of ignoring the facts. At the same
time you take offense for imagined "lies and slander", you engage in the
very behavior that you incorrectly infer on part of other people.
I am sorry that you so severely misconstrued the various posts in this
thread. However, I don't believe that until you go back and review them
and try to understand them from the perspective of the person writing
them rather than your own defensive perspective, that any progress is
likely to be made. So, I promise this is my last post on the topic as
long as you continue to hold to the impression that I am somehow
attacking you or otherwise deserving of your hostility.
Pete
?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=F6ran_Andersson?=
Peter said:
And as an opinion you are of course in title to it. But it's only an
opinion, not fact. Why did you present it as a fact?
It was you who attacked me, not the other way around. Am I not allowed
to respond to your allegations?
P
Peter Duniho
Göran Andersson said:
The same reason you presented the opposite opinion as fact.
There's not a single post in this thread that could be legitimately
described as an "attack", or even containing "allegations". It's clear
you've interpreted something that way, but I suggest you calm down,
clear your head, and go back and review the messages with a more
objective, less defensive eye.
Pete
?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=F6ran_Andersson?=
Peter said:
What kind of answer is that? Can't you answer a simple question?
P
Peter Duniho
Göran Andersson said:
Yes.