Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> [spam about] Consulting and teaching positions:
>
> ...
> Recruiting Manager
> Human Factors International

This bit of spam I don't get.
1. A bona fide HFI representative wouldn't be using a hotmail address
2. HFI should have no need to spam Usenet with this stuff and I can't
fathom them doing it

It's inconceivable to me that this spammer is even remotely associated
with HFI. What benefit could he possibly get out of this?

--
Berg

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:00:30 -0600, Bergamot put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>RafaMinu wrote:
>> [spam about] Consulting and teaching positions:
>>
>> ...
>> Recruiting Manager
>> Human Factors International
>
>This bit of spam I don't get.
>1. A bona fide HFI representative wouldn't be using a hotmail address
>2. HFI should have no need to spam Usenet with this stuff and I can't
>fathom them doing it
>
>It's inconceivable to me that this spammer is even remotely associated
>with HFI. What benefit could he possibly get out of this?

It could be a joe-job. Or it could be an enthusiastic but ignorant
junior member of HFI staff.

Mark
--
http://www.BritishSurnames.co.uk - What does your surname say about you?
"We're not the ones who're meant to follow"

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:00:30 -0600, Bergamot put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>RafaMinu wrote:
>> [spam about] Consulting and teaching positions:
>>
>> ...
>> Recruiting Manager
>> Human Factors International
>
>This bit of spam I don't get.
>1. A bona fide HFI representative wouldn't be using a hotmail address
>2. HFI should have no need to spam Usenet with this stuff and I can't
>fathom them doing it
>
>It's inconceivable to me that this spammer is even remotely associated
>with HFI. What benefit could he possibly get out of this?

It could be a joe-job. Or it could be an enthusiastic but ignorant
junior member of HFI staff.

Mark
--
http://www.BritishSurnames.co.uk - What does your surname say about you?
"We're not the ones who're meant to follow"

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

"Bergamot" wrote in message
news:5tssiiF1f87khU1@mid.individual.net...
> RafaMinu wrote:

> This bit of spam I don't get.
> 1. A bona fide HFI representative wouldn't be using a hotmail address
> 2. HFI should have no need to spam Usenet with this stuff and I can't
> fathom them doing it
>
> It's inconceivable to me that this spammer is even remotely associated
> with HFI. What benefit could he possibly get out of this?

Believe it or not - some folks spam just for the fun of spamming.
No profit-motive whatsoever.

I was inline at the local gas station and heard a fellow talking to his
buddy about it.
Said he'd logged on pretending to be from Mobil Oil and how coool it was
that some people believed him.
Weird, eh?

In last month's issue of Wired magazine, there's an interesting article
about these kinds of personalities.
The topic is nominally about "micro-celebrity", but it relates.

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

"Bergamot" wrote in message
news:5tssiiF1f87khU1@mid.individual.net...
> RafaMinu wrote:

> This bit of spam I don't get.
> 1. A bona fide HFI representative wouldn't be using a hotmail address
> 2. HFI should have no need to spam Usenet with this stuff and I can't
> fathom them doing it
>
> It's inconceivable to me that this spammer is even remotely associated
> with HFI. What benefit could he possibly get out of this?

Believe it or not - some folks spam just for the fun of spamming.
No profit-motive whatsoever.

I was inline at the local gas station and heard a fellow talking to his
buddy about it.
Said he'd logged on pretending to be from Mobil Oil and how coool it was
that some people believed him.
Weird, eh?

In last month's issue of Wired magazine, there's an interesting article
about these kinds of personalities.
The topic is nominally about "micro-celebrity", but it relates.

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
>> It could be a joe-job. Or it could be an enthusiastic but ignorant
>> junior member of HFI staff.
>
> None of the above.
>
> I sincerely fail to see what's wrong with the post.
>
> Please, explain what it is that bothers you so much.
>
>

Because it's SPAM, that's why. And why would you post it unless you're
either a junior member of the HFI staff, or doing a joe-job?

I hope they can you.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
>> It could be a joe-job. Or it could be an enthusiastic but ignorant
>> junior member of HFI staff.
>
> None of the above.
>
> I sincerely fail to see what's wrong with the post.
>
> Please, explain what it is that bothers you so much.
>
>

Because it's SPAM, that's why. And why would you post it unless you're
either a junior member of the HFI staff, or doing a joe-job?

I hope they can you.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Dec 31, 8:00 pm, Bergamot wrote:
>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>> [spam about] Consulting and teaching positions:
>>> ...
>>> Recruiting Manager
>>> Human Factors International
>> This bit of spam I don't get.
>> 1. A bona fide HFI representative wouldn't be using a hotmail address
>> 2. HFI should have no need to spam Usenet with this stuff and I can't
>> fathom them doing it
>>
>> It's inconceivable to me that this spammer is even remotely associated
>> with HFI. What benefit could he possibly get out of this?
>
> And who says I'm a HFI representative?
> I find the information interesting and I post it here because it might
> be of interest to other people.
> What's the problem?
>

Yea... right.

Someone who never posted in these newsgroups before all of a sudden
starts posting SPAM?

You must be a joe-jobber.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Dec 31, 8:00 pm, Bergamot wrote:
>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>> [spam about] Consulting and teaching positions:
>>> ...
>>> Recruiting Manager
>>> Human Factors International
>> This bit of spam I don't get.
>> 1. A bona fide HFI representative wouldn't be using a hotmail address
>> 2. HFI should have no need to spam Usenet with this stuff and I can't
>> fathom them doing it
>>
>> It's inconceivable to me that this spammer is even remotely associated
>> with HFI. What benefit could he possibly get out of this?
>
> And who says I'm a HFI representative?
> I find the information interesting and I post it here because it might
> be of interest to other people.
> What's the problem?
>

Yea... right.

Someone who never posted in these newsgroups before all of a sudden
starts posting SPAM?

You must be a joe-jobber.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Dec 31, 8:16 pm, Mark Goodge
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:00:30 -0600, Bergamot put finger to keyboard
>> and typed:
>>
>>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>>> [spam about] Consulting and teaching positions:
>>>> ...
>>>> Recruiting Manager
>>>> Human Factors International
>>> This bit of spam I don't get.
>>> 1. A bona fide HFI representative wouldn't be using a hotmail address
>>> 2. HFI should have no need to spam Usenet with this stuff and I can't
>>> fathom them doing it
>>> It's inconceivable to me that this spammer is even remotely associated
>>> with HFI. What benefit could he possibly get out of this?
>> It could be a joe-job. Or it could be an enthusiastic but ignorant
>> junior member of HFI staff.
>
> None of the above.
>
> I sincerely fail to see what's wrong with the post.
>
> Please, explain what it is that bothers you so much.

The explanation above looked pretty clear to me. Are you asking him to
repeat it?

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Dec 31, 8:16 pm, Mark Goodge
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:00:30 -0600, Bergamot put finger to keyboard
>> and typed:
>>
>>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>>> [spam about] Consulting and teaching positions:
>>>> ...
>>>> Recruiting Manager
>>>> Human Factors International
>>> This bit of spam I don't get.
>>> 1. A bona fide HFI representative wouldn't be using a hotmail address
>>> 2. HFI should have no need to spam Usenet with this stuff and I can't
>>> fathom them doing it
>>> It's inconceivable to me that this spammer is even remotely associated
>>> with HFI. What benefit could he possibly get out of this?
>> It could be a joe-job. Or it could be an enthusiastic but ignorant
>> junior member of HFI staff.
>
> None of the above.
>
> I sincerely fail to see what's wrong with the post.
>
> Please, explain what it is that bothers you so much.

The explanation above looked pretty clear to me. Are you asking him to
repeat it?

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:57:48 +0100, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:
> RafaMinu wrote:
>> On Dec 31, 8:00 pm, Bergamot wrote:
>>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>>> [spam about] Consulting and teaching positions:
>>>> ...
>>>> Recruiting Manager
>>>> Human Factors International
>>> This bit of spam I don't get.
>>> 1. A bona fide HFI representative wouldn't be using a hotmail address
>>> 2. HFI should have no need to spam Usenet with this stuff and I can't
>>> fathom them doing it
>>>
>>> It's inconceivable to me that this spammer is even remotely associated
>>> with HFI. What benefit could he possibly get out of this?
>> And who says I'm a HFI representative?
>> I find the information interesting and I post it here because it might
>> be of interest to other people.
>> What's the problem?
>>
>
> Yea... right.
>
> Someone who never posted in these newsgroups before all of a sudden
> starts posting SPAM?

I have a feeling he has posted before. It's not for nothing he got caught
in my spam filters...

--
Rik Wasmus

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Dec 31, 8:00 pm, Bergamot wrote:
>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>> [spam about] Consulting and teaching positions:
>>> ...
>>> Recruiting Manager
>>> Human Factors International
>> This bit of spam I don't get.
>> 1. A bona fide HFI representative wouldn't be using a hotmail address
>> 2. HFI should have no need to spam Usenet with this stuff and I can't
>> fathom them doing it
>>
>> It's inconceivable to me that this spammer is even remotely associated
>> with HFI. What benefit could he possibly get out of this?
>
> And who says I'm a HFI representative?
> I find the information interesting and I post it here because it might
> be of interest to other people.
> What's the problem?

It's unusual for people to read an ad for some arbitrary service with
which they have no affiliation and to be seized by the urge to place a
note about it in multiple Usenet newsgroups in which they don't
participate purely for the benefit of people they don't know. It isn't
unreasonable in these cases to suspect that the note is a more-or-less
disguised ad posted by a person who stands to benefit, directly or
indirectly, from the posting.

One time I saw a real idiot pull a stunt where he made himself out to be
an ordinary consumer just like us who had discovered this fantastic
product that he felt he had to share with us. He got really quiet after
someone pointed out to him that the message's headers revealed that it
had come from the very company that he was pretending only to have
happened upon.

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Dec 31, 8:00 pm, Bergamot wrote:
>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>> [spam about] Consulting and teaching positions:
>>> ...
>>> Recruiting Manager
>>> Human Factors International
>> This bit of spam I don't get.
>> 1. A bona fide HFI representative wouldn't be using a hotmail address
>> 2. HFI should have no need to spam Usenet with this stuff and I can't
>> fathom them doing it
>>
>> It's inconceivable to me that this spammer is even remotely associated
>> with HFI. What benefit could he possibly get out of this?
>
> And who says I'm a HFI representative?
> I find the information interesting and I post it here because it might
> be of interest to other people.
> What's the problem?

It's unusual for people to read an ad for some arbitrary service with
which they have no affiliation and to be seized by the urge to place a
note about it in multiple Usenet newsgroups in which they don't
participate purely for the benefit of people they don't know. It isn't
unreasonable in these cases to suspect that the note is a more-or-less
disguised ad posted by a person who stands to benefit, directly or
indirectly, from the posting.

One time I saw a real idiot pull a stunt where he made himself out to be
an ordinary consumer just like us who had discovered this fantastic
product that he felt he had to share with us. He got really quiet after
someone pointed out to him that the message's headers revealed that it
had come from the very company that he was pretending only to have
happened upon.

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Dec 31, 8:00 pm, Bergamot wrote:
>> RafaMinu wrote:
>> > [spam about] Consulting and teaching positions:
>>
>> It's inconceivable to me that this spammer is even remotely associated
>> with HFI. What benefit could he possibly get out of this?
>
> And who says I'm a HFI representative?

No one. You never identified yourself in any way, which made it
suspicious from the get-go. If you were a regular in these newsgroups,
it would still be spam but the ensuing discussion probably would have
taken a different turn.

> What's the problem?

Clue deficiency?

--
Berg

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Dec 31, 8:00 pm, Bergamot wrote:
>> RafaMinu wrote:
>> > [spam about] Consulting and teaching positions:
>>
>> It's inconceivable to me that this spammer is even remotely associated
>> with HFI. What benefit could he possibly get out of this?
>
> And who says I'm a HFI representative?

No one. You never identified yourself in any way, which made it
suspicious from the get-go. If you were a regular in these newsgroups,
it would still be spam but the ensuing discussion probably would have
taken a different turn.

> What's the problem?

Clue deficiency?

--
Berg

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote in message:
f14fe715-0a80-4630-8240-fe745415881f@1g2000hsl.googlegroups. com,

> On Dec 31, 8:00 pm, Bergamot wrote:
>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>> [spam about] Consulting and teaching positions:
>>
>>> ...
>>> Recruiting Manager
>>> Human Factors International
>>
>> This bit of spam I don't get.
>> 1. A bona fide HFI representative wouldn't be using a hotmail address
>> 2. HFI should have no need to spam Usenet with this stuff and I can't
>> fathom them doing it
>>
>> It's inconceivable to me that this spammer is even remotely
>> associated with HFI. What benefit could he possibly get out of this?
>
> And who says I'm a HFI representative?
> I find the information interesting and I post it here because it might
> be of interest to other people.
> What's the problem?

Besides the fact that your message is essentially unsolicted advertising
and as such is unwelcome here, it appears as if you signed someone
else's name to it.

"Jim Garrett
Recruiting Manager
Human Factors International"

Jim Garrett is located in Iowa
Your IP indicates that you are located in Spain.

And as was pointed out by someone else:
"It's unusual for people to read an ad for some arbitrary service with
which they have no affiliation and to be seized by the urge to place a
note about it in multiple Usenet newsgroups in which they don't
participate purely for the benefit of people they don't know."

It's not just unusual, but rather unheard of. This sort of thing (to
this extent) is never done by a disinterested third party. There's
always a hidden agenda.

--
Red

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote in message:
f14fe715-0a80-4630-8240-fe745415881f@1g2000hsl.googlegroups. com,

> On Dec 31, 8:00 pm, Bergamot wrote:
>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>> [spam about] Consulting and teaching positions:
>>
>>> ...
>>> Recruiting Manager
>>> Human Factors International
>>
>> This bit of spam I don't get.
>> 1. A bona fide HFI representative wouldn't be using a hotmail address
>> 2. HFI should have no need to spam Usenet with this stuff and I can't
>> fathom them doing it
>>
>> It's inconceivable to me that this spammer is even remotely
>> associated with HFI. What benefit could he possibly get out of this?
>
> And who says I'm a HFI representative?
> I find the information interesting and I post it here because it might
> be of interest to other people.
> What's the problem?

Besides the fact that your message is essentially unsolicted advertising
and as such is unwelcome here, it appears as if you signed someone
else's name to it.

"Jim Garrett
Recruiting Manager
Human Factors International"

Jim Garrett is located in Iowa
Your IP indicates that you are located in Spain.

And as was pointed out by someone else:
"It's unusual for people to read an ad for some arbitrary service with
which they have no affiliation and to be seized by the urge to place a
note about it in multiple Usenet newsgroups in which they don't
participate purely for the benefit of people they don't know."

It's not just unusual, but rather unheard of. This sort of thing (to
this extent) is never done by a disinterested third party. There's
always a hidden agenda.

--
Red

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

"Harlan Messinger" wrote in message
news:5tt4c3F1fblqqU1@mid.individual.net...
> RafaMinu wrote:
>> On Dec 31, 8:00 pm, Bergamot wrote:
>>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>>> [spam about] Consulting and teaching positions:
>>>> ...
>>>> Recruiting Manager
>>>> Human Factors International
>>> This bit of spam I don't get.
>>> 1. A bona fide HFI representative wouldn't be using a hotmail address
>>> 2. HFI should have no need to spam Usenet with this stuff and I can't
>>> fathom them doing it
>>>
>>> It's inconceivable to me that this spammer is even remotely associated
>>> with HFI. What benefit could he possibly get out of this?
>>
>> And who says I'm a HFI representative?
>> I find the information interesting and I post it here because it might
>> be of interest to other people.
>> What's the problem?
>
> It's unusual for people to read an ad for some arbitrary service with
> which they have no affiliation and to be seized by the urge to place a
> note about it in multiple Usenet newsgroups in which they don't
> participate purely for the benefit of people they don't know. It isn't
> unreasonable in these cases to suspect that the note is a more-or-less
> disguised ad posted by a person who stands to benefit, directly or
> indirectly, from the posting.

And then when I pulled a sarcy reply, I get a wonderful and highly
informative one back.

Hmm...

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

"Harlan Messinger" wrote in message
news:5tt4c3F1fblqqU1@mid.individual.net...
> RafaMinu wrote:
>> On Dec 31, 8:00 pm, Bergamot wrote:
>>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>>> [spam about] Consulting and teaching positions:
>>>> ...
>>>> Recruiting Manager
>>>> Human Factors International
>>> This bit of spam I don't get.
>>> 1. A bona fide HFI representative wouldn't be using a hotmail address
>>> 2. HFI should have no need to spam Usenet with this stuff and I can't
>>> fathom them doing it
>>>
>>> It's inconceivable to me that this spammer is even remotely associated
>>> with HFI. What benefit could he possibly get out of this?
>>
>> And who says I'm a HFI representative?
>> I find the information interesting and I post it here because it might
>> be of interest to other people.
>> What's the problem?
>
> It's unusual for people to read an ad for some arbitrary service with
> which they have no affiliation and to be seized by the urge to place a
> note about it in multiple Usenet newsgroups in which they don't
> participate purely for the benefit of people they don't know. It isn't
> unreasonable in these cases to suspect that the note is a more-or-less
> disguised ad posted by a person who stands to benefit, directly or
> indirectly, from the posting.

And then when I pulled a sarcy reply, I get a wonderful and highly
informative one back.

Hmm...

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Dec 31 2007, 9:56 pm, Jerry Stuckle
> wrote:
>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>>> It could be a joe-job. Or it could be an enthusiastic but ignorant
>>>> junior member of HFI staff.
>>> None of the above.
>>> I sincerely fail to see what's wrong with the post.
>>> Please, explain what it is that bothers you so much.
>> Because it's SPAM, that's why.
> It's NOT SPAM.
> Just because.
>

Sorry, it's SPAM - plain and simple. See the FAQ's for the groups
you're posting in - most do not like ads.

>> And why would you post it unless you're
>> either a junior member of the HFI staff, or doing a joe-job?
> Because I feel like posting it, that's why.
>

Typical response for a spammer - especially a stoopid one.

But your joe-job doesn't work.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Dec 31 2007, 9:56 pm, Jerry Stuckle
> wrote:
>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>>> It could be a joe-job. Or it could be an enthusiastic but ignorant
>>>> junior member of HFI staff.
>>> None of the above.
>>> I sincerely fail to see what's wrong with the post.
>>> Please, explain what it is that bothers you so much.
>> Because it's SPAM, that's why.
> It's NOT SPAM.
> Just because.
>

Sorry, it's SPAM - plain and simple. See the FAQ's for the groups
you're posting in - most do not like ads.

>> And why would you post it unless you're
>> either a junior member of the HFI staff, or doing a joe-job?
> Because I feel like posting it, that's why.
>

Typical response for a spammer - especially a stoopid one.

But your joe-job doesn't work.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 1, 1:07 am, "Red E. Kilowatt"
> wrote:
>> RafaMinu wrote in message:
>>
>> f14fe715-0a80-4630-8240-fe7454158...@1g2000hsl.googlegroups. com,
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 31, 8:00 pm, Bergamot wrote:
>>>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>>>> [spam about] Consulting and teaching positions:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Recruiting Manager
>>>>> Human Factors International
>>>> This bit of spam I don't get.
>>>> 1. A bona fide HFI representative wouldn't be using a hotmail address
>>>> 2. HFI should have no need to spam Usenet with this stuff and I can't
>>>> fathom them doing it
>>>> It's inconceivable to me that this spammer is even remotely
>>>> associated with HFI. What benefit could he possibly get out of this?
>>> And who says I'm a HFI representative?
>>> I find the information interesting and I post it here because it might
>>> be of interest to other people.
>>> What's the problem?
>> Besides the fact that your message is essentially unsolicted advertising
> It's NOT unsolicted advertising.
> I have nothing to do with Human Factors International or We7.
>
>> and as such is unwelcome here, it appears as if you signed someone
>> else's name to it.
>>
>> "Jim Garrett
>> Recruiting Manager
>> Human Factors International"
> Do you really believe that I quote my own posts and then sign them in
> third person?
> I mean, really, what's wrong with you people?
>
>> Jim Garrett is located in Iowa
>> Your IP indicates that you are located in Spain.
> My IP is not an indication of my location.
>
>> And as was pointed out by someone else:
>> "It's unusual for people to read an ad for some arbitrary service with
>> which they have no affiliation and to be seized by the urge to place a
>> note about it in multiple Usenet newsgroups in which they don't
>> participate purely for the benefit of people they don't know."
>>
>> It's not just unusual, but rather unheard of. This sort of thing (to
>> this extent) is never done by a disinterested third party. There's
>> always a hidden agenda.
>
> Believe or not the only interest behind the posting is nothing else
> than provide useful information.
>

ROFLMAO! How stoopid do you think we are, spammer?

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 1, 1:07 am, "Red E. Kilowatt"
> wrote:
>> RafaMinu wrote in message:
>>
>> f14fe715-0a80-4630-8240-fe7454158...@1g2000hsl.googlegroups. com,
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 31, 8:00 pm, Bergamot wrote:
>>>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>>>> [spam about] Consulting and teaching positions:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> Recruiting Manager
>>>>> Human Factors International
>>>> This bit of spam I don't get.
>>>> 1. A bona fide HFI representative wouldn't be using a hotmail address
>>>> 2. HFI should have no need to spam Usenet with this stuff and I can't
>>>> fathom them doing it
>>>> It's inconceivable to me that this spammer is even remotely
>>>> associated with HFI. What benefit could he possibly get out of this?
>>> And who says I'm a HFI representative?
>>> I find the information interesting and I post it here because it might
>>> be of interest to other people.
>>> What's the problem?
>> Besides the fact that your message is essentially unsolicted advertising
> It's NOT unsolicted advertising.
> I have nothing to do with Human Factors International or We7.
>
>> and as such is unwelcome here, it appears as if you signed someone
>> else's name to it.
>>
>> "Jim Garrett
>> Recruiting Manager
>> Human Factors International"
> Do you really believe that I quote my own posts and then sign them in
> third person?
> I mean, really, what's wrong with you people?
>
>> Jim Garrett is located in Iowa
>> Your IP indicates that you are located in Spain.
> My IP is not an indication of my location.
>
>> And as was pointed out by someone else:
>> "It's unusual for people to read an ad for some arbitrary service with
>> which they have no affiliation and to be seized by the urge to place a
>> note about it in multiple Usenet newsgroups in which they don't
>> participate purely for the benefit of people they don't know."
>>
>> It's not just unusual, but rather unheard of. This sort of thing (to
>> this extent) is never done by a disinterested third party. There's
>> always a hidden agenda.
>
> Believe or not the only interest behind the posting is nothing else
> than provide useful information.
>

ROFLMAO! How stoopid do you think we are, spammer?

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 17:48:59 -0800 (PST), RafaMinu put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>On Jan 1, 1:07 am, "Red E. Kilowatt"
>wrote:
>>
>> Besides the fact that your message is essentially unsolicted advertising
>It's NOT unsolicted advertising.

Of coruse it is. You did read the charters and/or FAQs of the groups
you posted to in order to check that advertising was permissible there
before posting, didn't you?

No, you didn't. And how do I know you didn't? Because at least one of
the groups you posted to forbids advertising. So in at least one of
the groups your post was unsolicited advertising.

>Believe or not the only interest behind the posting is nothing else
>than provide useful information.

Then do you now accept that posting it was a mistake and promise not
to do it again?

Mark
--
Blog: http://Mark.Goodge.co.uk Photos: http://www.goodge.co.uk
"I feel these four walls closing in"

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 17:48:59 -0800 (PST), RafaMinu put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>On Jan 1, 1:07 am, "Red E. Kilowatt"
>wrote:
>>
>> Besides the fact that your message is essentially unsolicted advertising
>It's NOT unsolicted advertising.

Of coruse it is. You did read the charters and/or FAQs of the groups
you posted to in order to check that advertising was permissible there
before posting, didn't you?

No, you didn't. And how do I know you didn't? Because at least one of
the groups you posted to forbids advertising. So in at least one of
the groups your post was unsolicited advertising.

>Believe or not the only interest behind the posting is nothing else
>than provide useful information.

Then do you now accept that posting it was a mistake and promise not
to do it again?

Mark
--
Blog: http://Mark.Goodge.co.uk Photos: http://www.goodge.co.uk
"I feel these four walls closing in"

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

"RafaMinu" wrote in message
news:bc7ab215-7bc2-46e4-82c1-6e353a8abdaa@e10g2000prf.google groups.com...
> On Jan 1, 1:07 am, "Red E. Kilowatt"

>> It's not just unusual, but rather unheard of. This sort of thing (to
>> this extent) is never done by a disinterested third party. There's
>> always a hidden agenda.

>Believe or not the only interest behind the posting is nothing else
>than provide useful information.

Hey, that was the defense one of those convicted spammers used.
He said he was providing a public information service.
Too bad for him, the judge didn't go for it.

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

"RafaMinu" wrote in message
news:bc7ab215-7bc2-46e4-82c1-6e353a8abdaa@e10g2000prf.google groups.com...
> On Jan 1, 1:07 am, "Red E. Kilowatt"

>> It's not just unusual, but rather unheard of. This sort of thing (to
>> this extent) is never done by a disinterested third party. There's
>> always a hidden agenda.

>Believe or not the only interest behind the posting is nothing else
>than provide useful information.

Hey, that was the defense one of those convicted spammers used.
He said he was providing a public information service.
Too bad for him, the judge didn't go for it.

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
>> >>> [spam about] Consulting and teaching positions:
>> >>> ...
>> >>> Recruiting Manager
>> >>> Human Factors International
>
> Believe or not the only interest behind the posting is nothing else
> than provide useful information.

What makes HFI's job openings different or more useful than the other
zillion job postings out there? You aren't going to spam Usenet with all
of them, are you?

--
Berg

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
>> >>> [spam about] Consulting and teaching positions:
>> >>> ...
>> >>> Recruiting Manager
>> >>> Human Factors International
>
> Believe or not the only interest behind the posting is nothing else
> than provide useful information.

What makes HFI's job openings different or more useful than the other
zillion job postings out there? You aren't going to spam Usenet with all
of them, are you?

--
Berg

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 17:48:59 -0800 (PST), RafaMinu put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>> On Jan 1, 1:07 am, "Red E. Kilowatt"
>> wrote:
>>> Besides the fact that your message is essentially unsolicted advertising
>> It's NOT unsolicted advertising.
>
> Of coruse it is. You did read the charters and/or FAQs of the groups
> you posted to in order to check that advertising was permissible there
> before posting, didn't you?
>
> No, you didn't. And how do I know you didn't? Because at least one of
> the groups you posted to forbids advertising. So in at least one of
> the groups your post was unsolicited advertising.

"Solicited" doesn't mean "permitted". The posting was *unsolicited* in
*all* the newsgroups. That is, unless some participant in all these
newsgroups contacted this person beforehand and requested, "Hey, could
you please post an ad for some service?"

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 17:48:59 -0800 (PST), RafaMinu put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>> On Jan 1, 1:07 am, "Red E. Kilowatt"
>> wrote:
>>> Besides the fact that your message is essentially unsolicted advertising
>> It's NOT unsolicted advertising.
>
> Of coruse it is. You did read the charters and/or FAQs of the groups
> you posted to in order to check that advertising was permissible there
> before posting, didn't you?
>
> No, you didn't. And how do I know you didn't? Because at least one of
> the groups you posted to forbids advertising. So in at least one of
> the groups your post was unsolicited advertising.

"Solicited" doesn't mean "permitted". The posting was *unsolicited* in
*all* the newsgroups. That is, unless some participant in all these
newsgroups contacted this person beforehand and requested, "Hey, could
you please post an ad for some service?"

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2:48 am, Bergamot wrote:
>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>>>>>> [spam about] Consulting and teaching positions:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Recruiting Manager
>>>>>>> Human Factors International
>>> Believe or not the only interest behind the posting is nothing else
>>> than provide useful information.
>> What makes HFI's job openings different or more useful than the other
>> zillion job postings out there? You aren't going to spam Usenet with all
>> of them, are you?
>
> The very nature of the job offered is what makes it different.
> It's all about accessibility and usability. A most interesting topic
> and related to ALL Groups posted.
> I just wish this thread would focus on that topic.
> If you want to discuss about SPAM, then you should focus your
> attention to the hundreds of SPAM messages posted on this Group on a
> regular basis.
>

No, it doesn't. There are zillions of other job postings of similar types.

You're just a spammer. Nothing more, nothing less.

And we're not talking about other spammers. We're talking about YOU.

We are focusing on the topic - YOUR SPAM.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2:48 am, Bergamot wrote:
>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>>>>>> [spam about] Consulting and teaching positions:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Recruiting Manager
>>>>>>> Human Factors International
>>> Believe or not the only interest behind the posting is nothing else
>>> than provide useful information.
>> What makes HFI's job openings different or more useful than the other
>> zillion job postings out there? You aren't going to spam Usenet with all
>> of them, are you?
>
> The very nature of the job offered is what makes it different.
> It's all about accessibility and usability. A most interesting topic
> and related to ALL Groups posted.
> I just wish this thread would focus on that topic.
> If you want to discuss about SPAM, then you should focus your
> attention to the hundreds of SPAM messages posted on this Group on a
> regular basis.
>

No, it doesn't. There are zillions of other job postings of similar types.

You're just a spammer. Nothing more, nothing less.

And we're not talking about other spammers. We're talking about YOU.

We are focusing on the topic - YOUR SPAM.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 3, 1:51 pm, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>> On Jan 3, 2:48 am, Bergamot wrote:
>>>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [spam about] Consulting and teaching positions:
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Recruiting Manager
>>>>>>>>> Human Factors International
>>>>> Believe or not the only interest behind the posting is nothing else
>>>>> than provide useful information.
>>>> What makes HFI's job openings different or more useful than the other
>>>> zillion job postings out there? You aren't going to spam Usenet with all
>>>> of them, are you?
>>> The very nature of the job offered is what makes it different.
>>> It's all about accessibility and usability. A most interesting topic
>>> and related to ALL Groups posted.
>>> I just wish this thread would focus on that topic.
>>> If you want to discuss about SPAM, then you should focus your
>>> attention to the hundreds of SPAM messages posted on this Group on a
>>> regular basis.
>> No, it doesn't. There are zillions of other job postings of similar types.
> Untrue.
> Show me just one.
>

Just google. You'll find them all over the place.

>> You're just a spammer. Nothing more, nothing less.
>>
>> And we're not talking about other spammers. We're talking about YOU.
>>
>> We are focusing on the topic - YOUR SPAM.
> Wrong.
> The topic I started is about accesibilty job openings.
> Alternatively I offered some advice to a novel musician.
> Your replies are the ones that are utterly off-topic and not welcomed.
> If you are interested in SPAM, I suggest you stay away from this
> thread and get into one of the zillion SPAM messages available
> somewhere else.
>

The topic you started is SPAM. Nothing more, nothing less. And we're
discussing your SPAM.

Get lost, SPAMMER. Your kind are not welcome here.

And I and others will keep telling you that until you get it through
your thick skull.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 3, 1:51 pm, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>> On Jan 3, 2:48 am, Bergamot wrote:
>>>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [spam about] Consulting and teaching positions:
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Recruiting Manager
>>>>>>>>> Human Factors International
>>>>> Believe or not the only interest behind the posting is nothing else
>>>>> than provide useful information.
>>>> What makes HFI's job openings different or more useful than the other
>>>> zillion job postings out there? You aren't going to spam Usenet with all
>>>> of them, are you?
>>> The very nature of the job offered is what makes it different.
>>> It's all about accessibility and usability. A most interesting topic
>>> and related to ALL Groups posted.
>>> I just wish this thread would focus on that topic.
>>> If you want to discuss about SPAM, then you should focus your
>>> attention to the hundreds of SPAM messages posted on this Group on a
>>> regular basis.
>> No, it doesn't. There are zillions of other job postings of similar types.
> Untrue.
> Show me just one.
>

Just google. You'll find them all over the place.

>> You're just a spammer. Nothing more, nothing less.
>>
>> And we're not talking about other spammers. We're talking about YOU.
>>
>> We are focusing on the topic - YOUR SPAM.
> Wrong.
> The topic I started is about accesibilty job openings.
> Alternatively I offered some advice to a novel musician.
> Your replies are the ones that are utterly off-topic and not welcomed.
> If you are interested in SPAM, I suggest you stay away from this
> thread and get into one of the zillion SPAM messages available
> somewhere else.
>

The topic you started is SPAM. Nothing more, nothing less. And we're
discussing your SPAM.

Get lost, SPAMMER. Your kind are not welcome here.

And I and others will keep telling you that until you get it through
your thick skull.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

>"RafaMinu" 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"

---dE|_---

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

>"RafaMinu" 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"

---dE|_---

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 3, 5:38 pm, "dE|_" wrote:
>>> "RafaMinu" 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.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 3, 5:38 pm, "dE|_" wrote:
>>> "RafaMinu" 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.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On 3/1/08 5:32 pm, in article woSdnZsPvMPzgeDanZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@comcast.com,
"Jerry Stuckle" 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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On 3/1/08 5:32 pm, in article woSdnZsPvMPzgeDanZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@comcast.com,
"Jerry Stuckle" 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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Andy Jacobs wrote:
> On 3/1/08 5:32 pm, in article woSdnZsPvMPzgeDanZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@comcast.com,
> "Jerry Stuckle" 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
==================

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Andy Jacobs wrote:
> On 3/1/08 5:32 pm, in article woSdnZsPvMPzgeDanZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@comcast.com,
> "Jerry Stuckle" 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
==================

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Andy Jacobs 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/

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Andy Jacobs 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/

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 3, 6:32 pm, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>> On Jan 3, 5:38 pm, "dE|_" wrote:
>>>>> "RafaMinu" 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
==================

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 3, 6:32 pm, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>> On Jan 3, 5:38 pm, "dE|_" wrote:
>>>>> "RafaMinu" 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
==================

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Dick Gaughan wrote:
> In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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
==================

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Dick Gaughan wrote:
> In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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
==================

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:57:04 +0100, Dick Gaughan
wrote:

> In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

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

> Andy Jacobs 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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

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

> Andy Jacobs 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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On 3/1/08 6:57 pm, in article iabqn3dc2s1cmik2gr4nsm4oshe96oe7q6@4ax.com,
"Dick Gaughan" wrote:

> In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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.

Blimey! I haven't heard BI used in an argument about SPAM since an ENORMOUS
thread in a freeserve web authoring group many years ago involving the
legendary Tony Morgan.

Those were the days!

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On 3/1/08 6:57 pm, in article iabqn3dc2s1cmik2gr4nsm4oshe96oe7q6@4ax.com,
"Dick Gaughan" wrote:

> In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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.

Blimey! I haven't heard BI used in an argument about SPAM since an ENORMOUS
thread in a freeserve web authoring group many years ago involving the
legendary Tony Morgan.

Those were the days!

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Andy Jacobs wrote:
> Let's say I post the following:



> Is that spam?

Usenet tradition says that job related posts only belong in groups set
up for that purpose. However one may define spam, help wanted posts are
off-topic in most newsgroups, including AWW.

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Andy Jacobs wrote:
> Let's say I post the following:



> Is that spam?

Usenet tradition says that job related posts only belong in groups set
up for that purpose. However one may define spam, help wanted posts are
off-topic in most newsgroups, including AWW.

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
>
> I'm going to add a few more links:
>
> Job Opening for Web Accessibility QA

You don't seem to get that these newsgroups aren't job boards.

> take your off-topic deviations somewhere else.

Why not follow your own advice? If you aren't going to do anything more
than post job openings, take it somewhere else.

Did it ever occur to you that those who have the skills needed for these
types of positions already know where to look for jobs? That's assuming
they even need one. Most people in these groups aren't qualified for
those types of jobs either, even if they are usability or accessibility
advocates. I bet the companies involved wouldn't be thrilled to get a
flood of unqualified applicants resulting from your posts.

You're not doing them any favors, or us.

--
Berg

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
>
> I'm going to add a few more links:
>
> Job Opening for Web Accessibility QA

You don't seem to get that these newsgroups aren't job boards.

> take your off-topic deviations somewhere else.

Why not follow your own advice? If you aren't going to do anything more
than post job openings, take it somewhere else.

Did it ever occur to you that those who have the skills needed for these
types of positions already know where to look for jobs? That's assuming
they even need one. Most people in these groups aren't qualified for
those types of jobs either, even if they are usability or accessibility
advocates. I bet the companies involved wouldn't be thrilled to get a
flood of unqualified applicants resulting from your posts.

You're not doing them any favors, or us.

--
Berg

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.www.webmaster.]
On 2008-01-03, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.

Every "official"** definition of Usenet spam that I've seen involves
excessive crossposting or multiposting, and that's what the BI measures.
Out of date? Maybe the threshhold needs to be changed - but it's far from
useless.

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

Well, that's off-topicness. Being off-topic is generally a bad thing, but
I've not heard a definition for newsgroup spam that involves content, only
number of times posted. (This doesn't make off-topic posting OK, just not
necessarily spam.)

--S

**As official as anything can be on Usenet.


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.www.webmaster.]
On 2008-01-03, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.

Every "official"** definition of Usenet spam that I've seen involves
excessive crossposting or multiposting, and that's what the BI measures.
Out of date? Maybe the threshhold needs to be changed - but it's far from
useless.

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

Well, that's off-topicness. Being off-topic is generally a bad thing, but
I've not heard a definition for newsgroup spam that involves content, only
number of times posted. (This doesn't make off-topic posting OK, just not
necessarily spam.)

--S

**As official as anything can be on Usenet.


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Geek-for-hire. Details: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stevesobol

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote in message:
197cc130-fc8c-4c41-8042-d31af37758cf@21g2000hsj.googlegroups .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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote in message:
197cc130-fc8c-4c41-8042-d31af37758cf@21g2000hsj.googlegroups .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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On 3/1/08 7:31 pm, in article VrqdnZaz58KJpeDanZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@comcast.com,
"Scott Bryce" wrote:

> Andy Jacobs wrote:
>> Let's say I post the following:
>
>
>
>> Is that spam?
>
> Usenet tradition says that job related posts only belong in groups set
> up for that purpose. However one may define spam, help wanted posts are
> off-topic in most newsgroups, including AWW.

Ok, we're getting very hypothetical and almost a bit silly but what about:

**********************************

I agree

--
Andy
We're great and the best at web design and lots of hyperbole and
superlatives about what we do. Come and buy Viagra here as well and anything
to enlarge/shrink/manipulate any part of your anatomy - www.blah.co.uk

**********************************

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On 3/1/08 7:31 pm, in article VrqdnZaz58KJpeDanZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@comcast.com,
"Scott Bryce" wrote:

> Andy Jacobs wrote:
>> Let's say I post the following:
>
>
>
>> Is that spam?
>
> Usenet tradition says that job related posts only belong in groups set
> up for that purpose. However one may define spam, help wanted posts are
> off-topic in most newsgroups, including AWW.

Ok, we're getting very hypothetical and almost a bit silly but what about:

**********************************

I agree

--
Andy
We're great and the best at web design and lots of hyperbole and
superlatives about what we do. Come and buy Viagra here as well and anything
to enlarge/shrink/manipulate any part of your anatomy - www.blah.co.uk

**********************************

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Andy Jacobs wrote:
> Ok, we're getting very hypothetical and almost a bit silly but what
> about:
>
> **********************************
>
> I agree
>
> -- Andy We're great and the best at web design and lots of hyperbole
> and superlatives about what we do. Come and buy Viagra here as well
> and anything to enlarge/shrink/manipulate any part of your anatomy -
> www.blah.co.uk
>
> **********************************


A post that says nothing but "I agree" is bad netiquette. A sig that is
no more than 5 lines of no more than 80 characters each can say pretty
much whatever you want it to say. Plugging your site in your sig is
considered fair game. Making meaningless posts just so that your sig can
be posted may be thought of as spam.

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Andy Jacobs wrote:
> Ok, we're getting very hypothetical and almost a bit silly but what
> about:
>
> **********************************
>
> I agree
>
> -- Andy We're great and the best at web design and lots of hyperbole
> and superlatives about what we do. Come and buy Viagra here as well
> and anything to enlarge/shrink/manipulate any part of your anatomy -
> www.blah.co.uk
>
> **********************************


A post that says nothing but "I agree" is bad netiquette. A sig that is
no more than 5 lines of no more than 80 characters each can say pretty
much whatever you want it to say. Plugging your site in your sig is
considered fair game. Making meaningless posts just so that your sig can
be posted may be thought of as spam.

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On 3/1/08 9:04 pm, in article PISdnf9pBpBA0ODanZ2dnUVZ_q6mnZ2d@comcast.com,
"Scott Bryce" wrote:

> Andy Jacobs wrote:
>> Ok, we're getting very hypothetical and almost a bit silly but what
>> about:
>>
>> **********************************
>>
>> I agree
>>
>> -- Andy We're great and the best at web design and lots of hyperbole
>> and superlatives about what we do. Come and buy Viagra here as well
>> and anything to enlarge/shrink/manipulate any part of your anatomy -
>> www.blah.co.uk
>>
>> **********************************
>
>
> A post that says nothing but "I agree" is bad netiquette. A sig that is
> no more than 5 lines of no more than 80 characters each can say pretty
> much whatever you want it to say. Plugging your site in your sig is
> considered fair game. Making meaningless posts just so that your sig can
> be posted may be thought of as spam.

And therein lies the problem.

'may be thought of'

I agree with what you're saying 100% but it's a bit subjective.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On 3/1/08 9:04 pm, in article PISdnf9pBpBA0ODanZ2dnUVZ_q6mnZ2d@comcast.com,
"Scott Bryce" wrote:

> Andy Jacobs wrote:
>> Ok, we're getting very hypothetical and almost a bit silly but what
>> about:
>>
>> **********************************
>>
>> I agree
>>
>> -- Andy We're great and the best at web design and lots of hyperbole
>> and superlatives about what we do. Come and buy Viagra here as well
>> and anything to enlarge/shrink/manipulate any part of your anatomy -
>> www.blah.co.uk
>>
>> **********************************
>
>
> A post that says nothing but "I agree" is bad netiquette. A sig that is
> no more than 5 lines of no more than 80 characters each can say pretty
> much whatever you want it to say. Plugging your site in your sig is
> considered fair game. Making meaningless posts just so that your sig can
> be posted may be thought of as spam.

And therein lies the problem.

'may be thought of'

I agree with what you're saying 100% but it's a bit subjective.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:17:30
GMT KarlCore scribed:

>> > Then why didn't you post this message in comp.human-factors? Why
>> > didn't you cross-post it to any of the many software development
>> > newsgroups? Why only comp.lang.php? Why not any of the Java or ASP
>> > newsgroups?
>>
>> I made a search for accessibility in Google Groups and I came up with
>> these first:
>> alt.www.webmaster, alt.html, uk.net.web.authoring, comp.lang.php,
>> comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
>> I didn't know about the existence of that group, but are you implying
>> that I should post the same message to comp.human-factors?
>> As I see that group focuses on issues related to human-computer
>> interaction (HCI). Not sure if it'd be appropriate for this kind of
>> post.
>
> This betrays your complete lack of understanding about what usability
> is.

Here here! Btw, do you have a brother named At The Earth's?

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:17:30
GMT KarlCore scribed:

>> > Then why didn't you post this message in comp.human-factors? Why
>> > didn't you cross-post it to any of the many software development
>> > newsgroups? Why only comp.lang.php? Why not any of the Java or ASP
>> > newsgroups?
>>
>> I made a search for accessibility in Google Groups and I came up with
>> these first:
>> alt.www.webmaster, alt.html, uk.net.web.authoring, comp.lang.php,
>> comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html
>> I didn't know about the existence of that group, but are you implying
>> that I should post the same message to comp.human-factors?
>> As I see that group focuses on issues related to human-computer
>> interaction (HCI). Not sure if it'd be appropriate for this kind of
>> post.
>
> This betrays your complete lack of understanding about what usability
> is.

Here here! Btw, do you have a brother named At The Earth's?

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

In on Thu, 03 Jan
2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

>Dick Gaughan wrote:
>> In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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.

>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.

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.

Until someone else comes up with a better content-blind objective
definition of spam, the BI is still the benchmark.

--
DG

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

In on Thu, 03 Jan
2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

>Dick Gaughan wrote:
>> In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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.

>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.

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.

Until someone else comes up with a better content-blind objective
definition of spam, the BI is still the benchmark.

--
DG

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Dick Gaughan wrote:
> In on Thu, 03 Jan
> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> wrote:
>
>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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.

What you want in your newsgroup is up to you. We don't want it here.

And BTW - the same is true for c.l.p, and it's in the charter for that
newsgroup.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Dick Gaughan wrote:
> In on Thu, 03 Jan
> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> wrote:
>
>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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.

What you want in your newsgroup is up to you. We don't want it here.

And BTW - the same is true for c.l.p, and it's in the charter for that
newsgroup.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 3, 8:39 pm, Bergamot wrote:
>>
>> Most people in these groups aren't qualified for
>> those types of jobs either, even if they are usability or accessibility
>> advocates.

> We are now able to produce web pages that function
> very similar and have an almost identical look and feel, regardless of
> which web browser you're using.

Not that I agree with that statement, but what's that got to do with
anything?

> By rejecting usability

Why do you think any of us are rejecting usability? We are simply
rejecting your post.

> As you can imagine, there's an urgent need for LOTS of professionals
> that can make those sites accessible.

Did you even read the HFI ad? They're looking for *instructors*. That's
a whole different skill set than just making accessibility improvements
on a web site. I imagine their hiring criteria for consultants is way
above your average self-taught webmaster, too.

BTW, do you even know the difference between usability and accessibility?

> So, you see, I do believe I am doing them a big favour, and a bigger
> favour to all readers of this thread interested in web design/
> development.

Yeah, OK, if you say so. :-\

--
Berg

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 3, 8:39 pm, Bergamot wrote:
>>
>> Most people in these groups aren't qualified for
>> those types of jobs either, even if they are usability or accessibility
>> advocates.

> We are now able to produce web pages that function
> very similar and have an almost identical look and feel, regardless of
> which web browser you're using.

Not that I agree with that statement, but what's that got to do with
anything?

> By rejecting usability

Why do you think any of us are rejecting usability? We are simply
rejecting your post.

> As you can imagine, there's an urgent need for LOTS of professionals
> that can make those sites accessible.

Did you even read the HFI ad? They're looking for *instructors*. That's
a whole different skill set than just making accessibility improvements
on a web site. I imagine their hiring criteria for consultants is way
above your average self-taught webmaster, too.

BTW, do you even know the difference between usability and accessibility?

> So, you see, I do believe I am doing them a big favour, and a bigger
> favour to all readers of this thread interested in web design/
> development.

Yeah, OK, if you say so. :-\

--
Berg

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

KarlCore wrote:
> On Jan 4, 9:19 am, KarlCore wrote:
>> On Jan 4, 9:10 am, Bergamot wrote:
>>
>>> Why do you think any of us are rejecting usability? We are simply
>>> rejecting your post.
>> It should be obvious by now that this person is a troll. Killfile
>> accordingly.
>>
>> Karl
>
> In fact, this is our Spanish friend, Rafael Martinez-Minuesa, better
> known as 1001Webs, who has morphed and returned to troll us.

Oh, good grief. I just confirmed this via Google. Not a clueless
stranger but a repeat offender. Thanks for figuring this out.

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

KarlCore wrote:
> On Jan 4, 9:19 am, KarlCore wrote:
>> On Jan 4, 9:10 am, Bergamot wrote:
>>
>>> Why do you think any of us are rejecting usability? We are simply
>>> rejecting your post.
>> It should be obvious by now that this person is a troll. Killfile
>> accordingly.
>>
>> Karl
>
> In fact, this is our Spanish friend, Rafael Martinez-Minuesa, better
> known as 1001Webs, who has morphed and returned to troll us.

Oh, good grief. I just confirmed this via Google. Not a clueless
stranger but a repeat offender. Thanks for figuring this out.

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

KarlCore wrote:
>
> In fact, this is our Spanish friend, Rafael Martinez-Minuesa, better
> known as 1001Webs, who has morphed and returned to troll us.

Now that you've figured this out, he'll no doubt find another handle to
pester us with. :(

--
Berg

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

KarlCore wrote:
>
> In fact, this is our Spanish friend, Rafael Martinez-Minuesa, better
> known as 1001Webs, who has morphed and returned to troll us.

Now that you've figured this out, he'll no doubt find another handle to
pester us with. :(

--
Berg

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

KarlCore writes:

> I'm just saying, if you want to be a troll, try harder
> because right now you're failing miserably.

He could learn a thing or two, that's for sure. Head over to
comp.lang.java.programmer, and have a look at the "Great SWT
Program" thread - it's been going for a couple of months now,
and has over 4000 messages in it. Now *that* is trolling.

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

KarlCore writes:

> I'm just saying, if you want to be a troll, try harder
> because right now you're failing miserably.

He could learn a thing or two, that's for sure. Head over to
comp.lang.java.programmer, and have a look at the "Great SWT
Program" thread - it's been going for a couple of months now,
and has over 4000 messages in it. Now *that* is trolling.

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 08:24:14 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

>RafaMinu wrote:
>> On Jan 3, 1:51 pm, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>>> On Jan 3, 2:48 am, Bergamot wrote:
>>>>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> [spam about] Consulting and teaching positions:
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> Recruiting Manager
>>>>>>>>>> Human Factors International
>>>>>> Believe or not the only interest behind the posting is nothing else
>>>>>> than provide useful information.
>>>>> What makes HFI's job openings different or more useful than the other
>>>>> zillion job postings out there? You aren't going to spam Usenet with all
>>>>> of them, are you?
>>>> The very nature of the job offered is what makes it different.
>>>> It's all about accessibility and usability. A most interesting topic
>>>> and related to ALL Groups posted.
>>>> I just wish this thread would focus on that topic.
>>>> If you want to discuss about SPAM, then you should focus your
>>>> attention to the hundreds of SPAM messages posted on this Group on a
>>>> regular basis.
>>> No, it doesn't. There are zillions of other job postings of similar types.
>> Untrue.
>> Show me just one.
>>
>
>Just google. You'll find them all over the place.
>
>>> You're just a spammer. Nothing more, nothing less.
>>>
>>> And we're not talking about other spammers. We're talking about YOU.
>>>
>>> We are focusing on the topic - YOUR SPAM.
>> Wrong.
>> The topic I started is about accesibilty job openings.
>> Alternatively I offered some advice to a novel musician.
>> Your replies are the ones that are utterly off-topic and not welcomed.
>> If you are interested in SPAM, I suggest you stay away from this
>> thread and get into one of the zillion SPAM messages available
>> somewhere else.
>>
>
>The topic you started is SPAM. Nothing more, nothing less. And we're
>discussing your SPAM.
>
>Get lost, SPAMMER. Your kind are not welcome here.
>
>And I and others will keep telling you that until you get it through
>your thick skull.

Do yourself a favour, OP. Ignore Stuckle. He can't help it, but he's
obsessive on describing anything he doesn't like as spam. And anyone
who disagrees is, according to him, a spammer themselves. He spent
three months calling me a spammer here and never got up the balls to
apologise for his lies.

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 08:24:14 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

>RafaMinu wrote:
>> On Jan 3, 1:51 pm, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>>> On Jan 3, 2:48 am, Bergamot wrote:
>>>>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> [spam about] Consulting and teaching positions:
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> Recruiting Manager
>>>>>>>>>> Human Factors International
>>>>>> Believe or not the only interest behind the posting is nothing else
>>>>>> than provide useful information.
>>>>> What makes HFI's job openings different or more useful than the other
>>>>> zillion job postings out there? You aren't going to spam Usenet with all
>>>>> of them, are you?
>>>> The very nature of the job offered is what makes it different.
>>>> It's all about accessibility and usability. A most interesting topic
>>>> and related to ALL Groups posted.
>>>> I just wish this thread would focus on that topic.
>>>> If you want to discuss about SPAM, then you should focus your
>>>> attention to the hundreds of SPAM messages posted on this Group on a
>>>> regular basis.
>>> No, it doesn't. There are zillions of other job postings of similar types.
>> Untrue.
>> Show me just one.
>>
>
>Just google. You'll find them all over the place.
>
>>> You're just a spammer. Nothing more, nothing less.
>>>
>>> And we're not talking about other spammers. We're talking about YOU.
>>>
>>> We are focusing on the topic - YOUR SPAM.
>> Wrong.
>> The topic I started is about accesibilty job openings.
>> Alternatively I offered some advice to a novel musician.
>> Your replies are the ones that are utterly off-topic and not welcomed.
>> If you are interested in SPAM, I suggest you stay away from this
>> thread and get into one of the zillion SPAM messages available
>> somewhere else.
>>
>
>The topic you started is SPAM. Nothing more, nothing less. And we're
>discussing your SPAM.
>
>Get lost, SPAMMER. Your kind are not welcome here.
>
>And I and others will keep telling you that until you get it through
>your thick skull.

Do yourself a favour, OP. Ignore Stuckle. He can't help it, but he's
obsessive on describing anything he doesn't like as spam. And anyone
who disagrees is, according to him, a spammer themselves. He spent
three months calling me a spammer here and never got up the balls to
apologise for his lies.

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 05:31:05 -0800 (PST), KarlCore
wrote:

>On Jan 3, 5:46 am, RafaMinu wrote:
>
>> If you want to discuss about SPAM, then you should focus your
>> attention to the hundreds of SPAM messages posted on this Group on a
>> regular basis.
>

Ooops, nothing left...

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 05:31:05 -0800 (PST), KarlCore
wrote:

>On Jan 3, 5:46 am, RafaMinu wrote:
>
>> If you want to discuss about SPAM, then you should focus your
>> attention to the hundreds of SPAM messages posted on this Group on a
>> regular basis.
>

Ooops, nothing left...

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 12:32:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

>RafaMinu wrote:
>> On Jan 3, 5:38 pm, "dE|_" wrote:
>>>> "RafaMinu" 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.

In the same way that you cant get anyone to discuss anything with you,
unless they're another loony anti-spam zealot?

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 12:32:26 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

>RafaMinu wrote:
>> On Jan 3, 5:38 pm, "dE|_" wrote:
>>>> "RafaMinu" 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.

In the same way that you cant get anyone to discuss anything with you,
unless they're another loony anti-spam zealot?

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 13:35:23 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

>Andy Jacobs wrote:
>> On 3/1/08 5:32 pm, in article woSdnZsPvMPzgeDanZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@comcast.com,
>> "Jerry Stuckle" 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.

Ooops, wrong again. Wow, Jerry, do you EVER get one right?

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 13:35:23 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

>Andy Jacobs wrote:
>> On 3/1/08 5:32 pm, in article woSdnZsPvMPzgeDanZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@comcast.com,
>> "Jerry Stuckle" 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.

Ooops, wrong again. Wow, Jerry, do you EVER get one right?

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On 3 Jan 2008 18:40:30 GMT, John Bokma wrote:

>Andy Jacobs 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. Well, I've no affiliation with
the OP, so I'm sure I can post his link:

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

Now Mr Bokma, I'm sure you already know the Virgin complaint email
address? Be my guest...

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On 3 Jan 2008 18:40:30 GMT, John Bokma wrote:

>Andy Jacobs 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. Well, I've no affiliation with
the OP, so I'm sure I can post his link:

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

Now Mr Bokma, I'm sure you already know the Virgin complaint email
address? Be my guest...

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

>Dick Gaughan wrote:
>> In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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.

LMFAO! You "consider" it spam, regardless of the fact that the only
accepted definition means it isn't? Nobody gives a flying toss what
*you* consider spam. It isn't. End of.

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

>Dick Gaughan wrote:
>> In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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.

LMFAO! You "consider" it spam, regardless of the fact that the only
accepted definition means it isn't? Nobody gives a flying toss what
*you* consider spam. It isn't. End of.

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

>Dick Gaughan wrote:
>> In on Thu, 03 Jan
>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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.
>
LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR
LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR
Sorry Jerry but again Google shows you're not just misled, but out and
out LYING. The vote went AGAINST your side buddy, which was when some
muppet decided that the vote he'd previously thought was a good idea
was in fact worthless :o)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

>Dick Gaughan wrote:
>> In on Thu, 03 Jan
>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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.
>
LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR
LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR
Sorry Jerry but again Google shows you're not just misled, but out and
out LYING. The vote went AGAINST your side buddy, which was when some
muppet decided that the vote he'd previously thought was a good idea
was in fact worthless :o)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 06:43:53 -0800 (PST), RafaMinu
wrote:

>On Jan 4, 3:27 pm, KarlCore wrote:
>> On Jan 4, 9:19 am, KarlCore wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 4, 9:10 am, Bergamot wrote:
>>
>> > > Why do you think any of us are rejecting usability? We are simply
>> > > rejecting your post.
>>
>> > It should be obvious by now that this person is a troll.  Killfile
>> > accordingly.
>>
>> > Karl
>>
>> In fact, this is our Spanish friend,  Rafael Martinez-Minuesa, better
>> known as 1001Webs, who has morphed and returned to troll us.
>>
>> Personally, I would have thought a 47 year old man would have more to
>> do than to troll newsgroups, but whatever.
>
>46.
>Can't even put 2 plus 2 together, can you?

Welcome back 1001! I'm pleased to see the zealots didn't put you off
posting here with their original attempt. Do feel free to stay and
point out their stupidity on a regular basis... :o)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 06:43:53 -0800 (PST), RafaMinu
wrote:

>On Jan 4, 3:27 pm, KarlCore wrote:
>> On Jan 4, 9:19 am, KarlCore wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 4, 9:10 am, Bergamot wrote:
>>
>> > > Why do you think any of us are rejecting usability? We are simply
>> > > rejecting your post.
>>
>> > It should be obvious by now that this person is a troll.  Killfile
>> > accordingly.
>>
>> > Karl
>>
>> In fact, this is our Spanish friend,  Rafael Martinez-Minuesa, better
>> known as 1001Webs, who has morphed and returned to troll us.
>>
>> Personally, I would have thought a 47 year old man would have more to
>> do than to troll newsgroups, but whatever.
>
>46.
>Can't even put 2 plus 2 together, can you?

Welcome back 1001! I'm pleased to see the zealots didn't put you off
posting here with their original attempt. Do feel free to stay and
point out their stupidity on a regular basis... :o)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 08:27:49 -0800 (PST), KarlCore
wrote:

>On Jan 4, 10:16 am, Bergamot wrote:
>> KarlCore wrote:
>>
>> > In fact, this is our Spanish friend, Rafael Martinez-Minuesa, better
>> > known as 1001Webs, who has morphed and returned to troll us.
>>
>> Now that you've figured this out, he'll no doubt find another handle to
>> pester us with. :(
>
>He's so obvious that it wasn't very hard to figure out. His "insults"
>and writing style is always the same.
>It is sad, really. He's a smart guy who could contribute to the group.
>Instead, he chooses to act like an annoying child.
>
If you zealots weren't so fixated, perhaps that might tell you
something. The pity is, your misguided cause blinds you to what others
find fairly obvious :o)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 08:27:49 -0800 (PST), KarlCore
wrote:

>On Jan 4, 10:16 am, Bergamot wrote:
>> KarlCore wrote:
>>
>> > In fact, this is our Spanish friend, Rafael Martinez-Minuesa, better
>> > known as 1001Webs, who has morphed and returned to troll us.
>>
>> Now that you've figured this out, he'll no doubt find another handle to
>> pester us with. :(
>
>He's so obvious that it wasn't very hard to figure out. His "insults"
>and writing style is always the same.
>It is sad, really. He's a smart guy who could contribute to the group.
>Instead, he chooses to act like an annoying child.
>
If you zealots weren't so fixated, perhaps that might tell you
something. The pity is, your misguided cause blinds you to what others
find fairly obvious :o)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Doug Baiter writes:

> LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR
> LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR

I don't care who you've got a personal beef with, or whether you choose
to label the OP as "spam" or merely "off-topic." The fact is that long-
standing usenet tradition is to restrict help-wanted posts to designated
jobs groups, and none of these is such a group.

*plonk*

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Doug Baiter writes:

> LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR
> LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR

I don't care who you've got a personal beef with, or whether you choose
to label the OP as "spam" or merely "off-topic." The fact is that long-
standing usenet tradition is to restrict help-wanted posts to designated
jobs groups, and none of these is such a group.

*plonk*

sherm--

--
My blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:42:45 GMT, Doug Baiter
> wrote:
>
>> On 3 Jan 2008 18:40:30 GMT, John Bokma wrote:
>>
>>> Andy Jacobs 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.

The serious people in a.w.w. have him blocked. I don't even see his
posts unless someone copies him. Most others don't, either.

And it galls him to no end! LOL.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:42:45 GMT, Doug Baiter
> wrote:
>
>> On 3 Jan 2008 18:40:30 GMT, John Bokma wrote:
>>
>>> Andy Jacobs 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.

The serious people in a.w.w. have him blocked. I don't even see his
posts unless someone copies him. Most others don't, either.

And it galls him to no end! LOL.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:47:33 GMT, Doug Baiter
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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. Hosting companies DO pay attention to spam
in alt groups, also. And the good ones don't keep spammers around.

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!).

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:47:33 GMT, Doug Baiter
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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. Hosting companies DO pay attention to spam
in alt groups, also. And the good ones don't keep spammers around.

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!).

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

"RafaMinu" say =
>>
>> Then why didn't you post this message in comp.human-factors? Why
>> didn't you cross-post it to any of the many software development
>> newsgroups? Why only comp.lang.php? Why not any of the Java or ASP
>> newsgroups?
>
>I made a search for accessibility in Google Groups and I came up with
>these first:
>
[snip]

Then just take this as a lesson and don't do it again.

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

"RafaMinu" say =
>>
>> Then why didn't you post this message in comp.human-factors? Why
>> didn't you cross-post it to any of the many software development
>> newsgroups? Why only comp.lang.php? Why not any of the Java or ASP
>> newsgroups?
>
>I made a search for accessibility in Google Groups and I came up with
>these first:
>
[snip]

Then just take this as a lesson and don't do it again.

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:26:11 -0500, Gary L. Burnore
wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:47:33 GMT, Doug Baiter
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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). Nevertheless, please
accept my apologies for the mistake.

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:26:11 -0500, Gary L. Burnore
wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:47:33 GMT, Doug Baiter
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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). Nevertheless, please
accept my apologies for the mistake.

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:18:24 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

>Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:42:45 GMT, Doug Baiter
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3 Jan 2008 18:40:30 GMT, John Bokma wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andy Jacobs 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.
>
>The serious people in a.w.w. have him blocked. I don't even see his
>posts unless someone copies him. Most others don't, either.
>
>And it galls him to no end! LOL.

I wonder why he imagines I care, especially since he's since been
exposed as some sort of scammer!

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:18:24 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:

>Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:42:45 GMT, Doug Baiter
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3 Jan 2008 18:40:30 GMT, John Bokma wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andy Jacobs 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.
>
>The serious people in a.w.w. have him blocked. I don't even see his
>posts unless someone copies him. Most others don't, either.
>
>And it galls him to no end! LOL.

I wonder why he imagines I care, especially since he's since been
exposed as some sort of scammer!

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 5, 3:18 am, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:42:45 GMT, Doug Baiter
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 3 Jan 2008 18:40:30 GMT, John Bokma wrote:
>>>>> Andy Jacobs 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
>>>>> nos...@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.
>>
>> The serious people in a.w.w. have him blocked. I don't even see his
>> posts unless someone copies him. Most others don't, either.
>
> Most honest people have you blocked, because you are a scammer, as I
> have proved in previous posts:
>
> SCAM Alert - Jerry Stuckle
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thre ad/thread/a995681672ce2805/a5cbbbc8ba81b63c?#a5cbbbc8ba81b63 c
>
> FRAUD Alert - SMARTECH HOMES, INC.:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thre ad/thread/f060789f62bf5263
>
> Besides other criminal actions ...
>

ROFLMAO! Try again, TROLL. As you've been told before3, in the United
States, a corporation can be registered in ANY state.

But your claims of fraud are criminal. Would you like me to contact the
Federal District Attorney's office? Being in the Washington, DC, area,
I do know people there. And some of them are my customers.

And the U.S. does have extradition agreements with Spain. How would you
like to have free room and board for the next 10 years, courtesy of the
U.S. Government?

And be sure about your answer. Because once they start, they won't stop
just because you ask them to - or apologize. They won't stop until they
have a verdict against you.

Of course, you might get off. And it would only cost you $20-50K US in
attorney's fees...

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 5, 3:18 am, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:42:45 GMT, Doug Baiter
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 3 Jan 2008 18:40:30 GMT, John Bokma wrote:
>>>>> Andy Jacobs 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
>>>>> nos...@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.
>>
>> The serious people in a.w.w. have him blocked. I don't even see his
>> posts unless someone copies him. Most others don't, either.
>
> Most honest people have you blocked, because you are a scammer, as I
> have proved in previous posts:
>
> SCAM Alert - Jerry Stuckle
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thre ad/thread/a995681672ce2805/a5cbbbc8ba81b63c?#a5cbbbc8ba81b63 c
>
> FRAUD Alert - SMARTECH HOMES, INC.:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thre ad/thread/f060789f62bf5263
>
> Besides other criminal actions ...
>

ROFLMAO! Try again, TROLL. As you've been told before3, in the United
States, a corporation can be registered in ANY state.

But your claims of fraud are criminal. Would you like me to contact the
Federal District Attorney's office? Being in the Washington, DC, area,
I do know people there. And some of them are my customers.

And the U.S. does have extradition agreements with Spain. How would you
like to have free room and board for the next 10 years, courtesy of the
U.S. Government?

And be sure about your answer. Because once they start, they won't stop
just because you ask them to - or apologize. They won't stop until they
have a verdict against you.

Of course, you might get off. And it would only cost you $20-50K US in
attorney's fees...

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 5, 3:21 am, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:47:33 GMT, Doug Baiter
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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. Hosting companies DO pay attention to spam
>> in alt groups, also. And the good ones don't keep spammers around.
>
> I have already forced you to close one of your SCAM websites:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thre ad/thread/f060789f62bf5263
>
> Do you want me to go on with the rest?
>

Sorry, the site is still up and the business is going fine.

But you may not be for long. Maybe a free plane ride to the U.S. will
get you to change your mind.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 5, 3:21 am, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:47:33 GMT, Doug Baiter
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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. Hosting companies DO pay attention to spam
>> in alt groups, also. And the good ones don't keep spammers around.
>
> I have already forced you to close one of your SCAM websites:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thre ad/thread/f060789f62bf5263
>
> Do you want me to go on with the rest?
>

Sorry, the site is still up and the business is going fine.

But you may not be for long. Maybe a free plane ride to the U.S. will
get you to change your mind.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

"RafaMinu" wrote
>> Forget Master Baiter. He's a troll who would love to see a.w.w. go to
>> the spammers.
>>
>> The serious people in a.w.w. have him blocked. I don't even see his
>> posts unless someone copies him. Most others don't, either.
>
>Most honest people have you blocked, because you are a scammer, as I
>have proved in previous posts:
>
>SCAM Alert - Jerry Stuckle
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thr ead/thread/a995681672ce2805/a5cbbbc8ba81b63c?>#a5cbbbc8ba81b 63c
>
>FRAUD Alert - SMARTECH HOMES, INC.:
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thr ead/thread/f060789f62bf5263
>
>Besides other criminal actions ...

Just as I was getting bored of this; sociopath 1001 bloke is back for a
second attempt at the argument he lost last time. Oh dear.

---dE|_---

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

"RafaMinu" wrote
>> Forget Master Baiter. He's a troll who would love to see a.w.w. go to
>> the spammers.
>>
>> The serious people in a.w.w. have him blocked. I don't even see his
>> posts unless someone copies him. Most others don't, either.
>
>Most honest people have you blocked, because you are a scammer, as I
>have proved in previous posts:
>
>SCAM Alert - Jerry Stuckle
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thr ead/thread/a995681672ce2805/a5cbbbc8ba81b63c?>#a5cbbbc8ba81b 63c
>
>FRAUD Alert - SMARTECH HOMES, INC.:
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thr ead/thread/f060789f62bf5263
>
>Besides other criminal actions ...

Just as I was getting bored of this; sociopath 1001 bloke is back for a
second attempt at the argument he lost last time. Oh dear.

---dE|_---

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

"RafaMinu"

>> >> Then why didn't you post this message in comp.human-factors? Why
>> >> didn't you cross-post it to any of the many software development
>> >> newsgroups? Why only comp.lang.php? Why not any of the Java or ASP
>> >> newsgroups?
>>
>> >I made a search for accessibility in Google Groups and I came up with
>> >these first:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Then just take this as a lesson and don't do it again.
> Then do what again?
> Provide you with a "wonderful and highly informative" reply?
> I see. So, if the opportunity is of interest to you it is wonderful
> but if it isn't then is spam.
>
> I'll tell you the lesson I learnt.
> I learnt that you lack any personality and dance to whatever song
> Jerry the Scammer sings.
> I've also learnt that you are not worth the time taken to provide you
> "wonderful and highly informative" replies.

Well you and I learned that at 2:39am I couldn't be arsed to give a full
description, so I shouldn't have bothered at all. Bad boy Del. But now you
have shown who you are (a.k.a. Webs1001) I am giving up because you have a
head like a warped brick wall.

Have a nice argument with Jerry,

---dE|_---

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

"RafaMinu"

>> >> Then why didn't you post this message in comp.human-factors? Why
>> >> didn't you cross-post it to any of the many software development
>> >> newsgroups? Why only comp.lang.php? Why not any of the Java or ASP
>> >> newsgroups?
>>
>> >I made a search for accessibility in Google Groups and I came up with
>> >these first:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Then just take this as a lesson and don't do it again.
> Then do what again?
> Provide you with a "wonderful and highly informative" reply?
> I see. So, if the opportunity is of interest to you it is wonderful
> but if it isn't then is spam.
>
> I'll tell you the lesson I learnt.
> I learnt that you lack any personality and dance to whatever song
> Jerry the Scammer sings.
> I've also learnt that you are not worth the time taken to provide you
> "wonderful and highly informative" replies.

Well you and I learned that at 2:39am I couldn't be arsed to give a full
description, so I shouldn't have bothered at all. Bad boy Del. But now you
have shown who you are (a.k.a. Webs1001) I am giving up because you have a
head like a warped brick wall.

Have a nice argument with Jerry,

---dE|_---

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 08:56:14 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:
>> FRAUD Alert - SMARTECH HOMES, INC.:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thre ad/thread/f060789f62bf5263
>>
>> Besides other criminal actions ...
>>
>
>ROFLMAO! Try again, TROLL. As you've been told before3, in the United
>States, a corporation can be registered in ANY state.
>
>But your claims of fraud are criminal. Would you like me to contact the
>Federal District Attorney's office? Being in the Washington, DC, area,
>I do know people there. And some of them are my customers.
>
>And the U.S. does have extradition agreements with Spain. How would you
>like to have free room and board for the next 10 years, courtesy of the
>U.S. Government?
>
>And be sure about your answer. Because once they start, they won't stop
>just because you ask them to - or apologize. They won't stop until they
>have a verdict against you.
>
>Of course, you might get off. And it would only cost you $20-50K US in
>attorney's fees...

Now I _really_ tried to ignore this bullshit from Stuckle, but
ultimately I'm afraid I simply couldn't resist it. Is this nutter
_really_ convinced that his (lamentably groundless) CIVIL suit would
result in an extradition from ANY sane country to the foul cesspit
that is otherwise known as the USA?
YES YES YES, Mr Stuckle, please do let me have details of my free room
and board courtesy of the shithole US. I promise I wont apologise or
ask 'them' (whoever them are...) to stop. I also promise I wont pay
twenty to fifty PESATAS to any flea-bitten litigious retard, whether
he calls himself an 'attorney' or not. Now, please do let me know when
the men in the black suits are going to come and kidnap a British
citizen from his home in order to satisfy some retarded halfwit Yank
with a grudge!

PS. I'd be awfully grateful if someone could repost this, since
(apparently) this completely ignorant of law halfwit has me on his
ignore list. Maybe he's still crying that he lacked the balls to
apologise for his lies about me spamming? LMFAO

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 08:56:14 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:
>> FRAUD Alert - SMARTECH HOMES, INC.:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thre ad/thread/f060789f62bf5263
>>
>> Besides other criminal actions ...
>>
>
>ROFLMAO! Try again, TROLL. As you've been told before3, in the United
>States, a corporation can be registered in ANY state.
>
>But your claims of fraud are criminal. Would you like me to contact the
>Federal District Attorney's office? Being in the Washington, DC, area,
>I do know people there. And some of them are my customers.
>
>And the U.S. does have extradition agreements with Spain. How would you
>like to have free room and board for the next 10 years, courtesy of the
>U.S. Government?
>
>And be sure about your answer. Because once they start, they won't stop
>just because you ask them to - or apologize. They won't stop until they
>have a verdict against you.
>
>Of course, you might get off. And it would only cost you $20-50K US in
>attorney's fees...

Now I _really_ tried to ignore this bullshit from Stuckle, but
ultimately I'm afraid I simply couldn't resist it. Is this nutter
_really_ convinced that his (lamentably groundless) CIVIL suit would
result in an extradition from ANY sane country to the foul cesspit
that is otherwise known as the USA?
YES YES YES, Mr Stuckle, please do let me have details of my free room
and board courtesy of the shithole US. I promise I wont apologise or
ask 'them' (whoever them are...) to stop. I also promise I wont pay
twenty to fifty PESATAS to any flea-bitten litigious retard, whether
he calls himself an 'attorney' or not. Now, please do let me know when
the men in the black suits are going to come and kidnap a British
citizen from his home in order to satisfy some retarded halfwit Yank
with a grudge!

PS. I'd be awfully grateful if someone could repost this, since
(apparently) this completely ignorant of law halfwit has me on his
ignore list. Maybe he's still crying that he lacked the balls to
apologise for his lies about me spamming? LMFAO

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

In on Thu, 03 Jan
2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:
>
>Dick Gaughan wrote:
>
>> 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.

That's not defining spam, it's defining what content is acceptable
for an individual newsgroup. I don't know of a single SP which
will take any action on the basis of a Charter breach in an alt.*
newsgroup. A few of the more responsible ones, like mine, might be
arsed on an otherwise slow day to take action on >=BI.

If your view about how spam should be defined (i.e., opinion of
content) were adopted across Usenet it would throw the door wide
open to content-based censorship, vigilantism and rogue
cancellation, the very things the BI was developed to resist. That
kind of approach can occasionally work in tightly moderated
newsgroups - in an unmoderated alt.* newsgroup, trying to enforce
anything is ludicrous and an invitation to entertainment for
trolls and wreckers.

When the original discussions about the BI were taking place, a
lot of argument went into trying to find a 100% trustworthy and
failsafe way of defining spam according to content. It was deemed
impossible. Which is why Seth Breidbart's proposal was adopted -
it was a precise, objectively-calculable number and it was not
related to the content of posts.

Now, if you can translate your opinion of what spam is into an
algorithm - as simple and workable as the BI - which can be used
for running a spam cancelbot, you'll be doing the whole of Usenet
a big favour, proving yourself much smarter than all those who
were around at that time and you'd maybe find your view about
replacing the BI being greeted by clueful people with something
other than hoots of laughter.

--
DG

Mail to usenet@gaelweb.co.uk goes to dev/null.

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

In on Thu, 03 Jan
2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
wrote:
>
>Dick Gaughan wrote:
>
>> 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.

That's not defining spam, it's defining what content is acceptable
for an individual newsgroup. I don't know of a single SP which
will take any action on the basis of a Charter breach in an alt.*
newsgroup. A few of the more responsible ones, like mine, might be
arsed on an otherwise slow day to take action on >=BI.

If your view about how spam should be defined (i.e., opinion of
content) were adopted across Usenet it would throw the door wide
open to content-based censorship, vigilantism and rogue
cancellation, the very things the BI was developed to resist. That
kind of approach can occasionally work in tightly moderated
newsgroups - in an unmoderated alt.* newsgroup, trying to enforce
anything is ludicrous and an invitation to entertainment for
trolls and wreckers.

When the original discussions about the BI were taking place, a
lot of argument went into trying to find a 100% trustworthy and
failsafe way of defining spam according to content. It was deemed
impossible. Which is why Seth Breidbart's proposal was adopted -
it was a precise, objectively-calculable number and it was not
related to the content of posts.

Now, if you can translate your opinion of what spam is into an
algorithm - as simple and workable as the BI - which can be used
for running a spam cancelbot, you'll be doing the whole of Usenet
a big favour, proving yourself much smarter than all those who
were around at that time and you'd maybe find your view about
replacing the BI being greeted by clueful people with something
other than hoots of laughter.

--
DG

Mail to usenet@gaelweb.co.uk goes to dev/null.

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2:56 pm, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>> On Jan 5, 3:18 am, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:42:45 GMT, Doug Baiter
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 3 Jan 2008 18:40:30 GMT, John Bokma wrote:
>>>>>>> Andy Jacobs 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
>>>>>>> nos...@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.
>>>> The serious people in a.w.w. have him blocked. I don't even see his
>>>> posts unless someone copies him. Most others don't, either.
>>> Most honest people have you blocked, because you are a scammer, as I
>>> have proved in previous posts:
>>> SCAM Alert - Jerry Stuckle
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thre ad/thread...
>>> FRAUD Alert - SMARTECH HOMES, INC.:
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thre ad/thread...
>>> Besides other criminal actions ...
>> ROFLMAO! Try again, TROLL. As you've been told before3, in the United
>> States, a corporation can be registered in ANY state.
>>
>> But your claims of fraud are criminal. Would you like me to contact the
>> Federal District Attorney's office? Being in the Washington, DC, area,
>> I do know people there. And some of them are my customers.
>>
>> And the U.S. does have extradition agreements with Spain. How would you
>> like to have free room and board for the next 10 years, courtesy of the
>> U.S. Government?
>>
>> And be sure about your answer. Because once they start, they won't stop
>> just because you ask them to - or apologize. They won't stop until they
>> have a verdict against you.
>>
>> Of course, you might get off. And it would only cost you $20-50K US in
>> attorney's fees...
>
> Since you asked for it:
>
> We believe that you should all know that the member of these Groups
> named Jerry Stuckle, who advertises himself as the MD of JDS Computer
> Training Corp. is blatantly lying in each and every message he posts
> with the unequivocally purpose of committing FRAUD.
>
> There's no such JDS Computer Training corporation and there has never
> been one.
> The only JDS Computer company that existed in Maryland was forfeited
> in 1996 by the Maryland Taxpayer Services Division.
>
> In case you ignore it, for a Maryland entity to be forfeited, means
> that its existence has been ended by the State for some delinquency.
>
> If you have been the victim of any Jerry Stuckle's scams, or have been
> approached by him in any way to offer you any kind of commercial
> transaction involving his fake companies, you can report it to the
> Federal Trade Commission or by contacting your State Attorneys
> General:
> http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org/stateattorneygeneralli st.php
> Your state Attorney General or local office of consumer protection is
> also listed in the government pages of your telephone book.
>
> Any kind of Internet Fraud that might have been committed by Jerry
> Stuckler can be reported by contacting the U.S. government's Internet
> Crime Complaint Center (IC3) at:
> http://www.ic3.gov/complaint/
>
> You may also contact the FBI Internet Fraud Complaint Center:
> http://www.ifccfbi.gov/index.asp
>
> If you have fallen victim of a Phishing scam originated at any of the
> fake Jerry Stuckler's pages, such as the one at:
> http://www.icca.org/member/memberpage.asp?id=400
> you can report it at the Consumer Fraud Reporting website:
> http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org/
>
> If you are approached by Jerry Stuckler, please don't give out any
> financial information, such as checking account and credit card
> numbers; and especially your social Security number.
>
> NEVER buy anything from a company that is listed as forfeited, as
> Jerry Stuckler's are.
> Don't even visit his Phishing and Spoofed websites or ask for more
> information.
> It is like feeding a stray cat. Give it one morsel of food, and it
> will be there all the time.
>
> We're sorry to have to be the ones to tell you all this, but the
> bottom line is, if you want to secure your hard-earned money, then you
> better have your feet on the ground, and don't let yourself be cheated
> by the likes of Jerry Stuckler.
>
> Thank you for your attention.
>
>

OK, you asked for it.

For your information, JDS Computer Training Corporation was NEVER
registered as a Maryland Corporation. So it could NEVER have been
forfeited as a Corporation. In fact, I didn't even live in Maryland in
1996. I challenge you to prove your statement.

The income for this corporation for last year probably exceeded anything
you could possibly make in your lifetime.

I also challenge you to prove any site which have been spoofed.

However, since you have falsely accused me and my corporation of a
criminal offense. I have no choice but to tell everyone that:

Rafael Martinez-Minuesa Martinez (info@1001webs.net)
+34.620443347
Fax:
Puerto Marina
Benalmadena, MALAGA 29630
ES


makes completely unfounded accusations against other people. He is a
liar and cannot support his lies with facts. He is the fraud here.


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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2:56 pm, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>> On Jan 5, 3:18 am, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:42:45 GMT, Doug Baiter
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 3 Jan 2008 18:40:30 GMT, John Bokma wrote:
>>>>>>> Andy Jacobs 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
>>>>>>> nos...@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.
>>>> The serious people in a.w.w. have him blocked. I don't even see his
>>>> posts unless someone copies him. Most others don't, either.
>>> Most honest people have you blocked, because you are a scammer, as I
>>> have proved in previous posts:
>>> SCAM Alert - Jerry Stuckle
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thre ad/thread...
>>> FRAUD Alert - SMARTECH HOMES, INC.:
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thre ad/thread...
>>> Besides other criminal actions ...
>> ROFLMAO! Try again, TROLL. As you've been told before3, in the United
>> States, a corporation can be registered in ANY state.
>>
>> But your claims of fraud are criminal. Would you like me to contact the
>> Federal District Attorney's office? Being in the Washington, DC, area,
>> I do know people there. And some of them are my customers.
>>
>> And the U.S. does have extradition agreements with Spain. How would you
>> like to have free room and board for the next 10 years, courtesy of the
>> U.S. Government?
>>
>> And be sure about your answer. Because once they start, they won't stop
>> just because you ask them to - or apologize. They won't stop until they
>> have a verdict against you.
>>
>> Of course, you might get off. And it would only cost you $20-50K US in
>> attorney's fees...
>
> Since you asked for it:
>
> We believe that you should all know that the member of these Groups
> named Jerry Stuckle, who advertises himself as the MD of JDS Computer
> Training Corp. is blatantly lying in each and every message he posts
> with the unequivocally purpose of committing FRAUD.
>
> There's no such JDS Computer Training corporation and there has never
> been one.
> The only JDS Computer company that existed in Maryland was forfeited
> in 1996 by the Maryland Taxpayer Services Division.
>
> In case you ignore it, for a Maryland entity to be forfeited, means
> that its existence has been ended by the State for some delinquency.
>
> If you have been the victim of any Jerry Stuckle's scams, or have been
> approached by him in any way to offer you any kind of commercial
> transaction involving his fake companies, you can report it to the
> Federal Trade Commission or by contacting your State Attorneys
> General:
> http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org/stateattorneygeneralli st.php
> Your state Attorney General or local office of consumer protection is
> also listed in the government pages of your telephone book.
>
> Any kind of Internet Fraud that might have been committed by Jerry
> Stuckler can be reported by contacting the U.S. government's Internet
> Crime Complaint Center (IC3) at:
> http://www.ic3.gov/complaint/
>
> You may also contact the FBI Internet Fraud Complaint Center:
> http://www.ifccfbi.gov/index.asp
>
> If you have fallen victim of a Phishing scam originated at any of the
> fake Jerry Stuckler's pages, such as the one at:
> http://www.icca.org/member/memberpage.asp?id=400
> you can report it at the Consumer Fraud Reporting website:
> http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org/
>
> If you are approached by Jerry Stuckler, please don't give out any
> financial information, such as checking account and credit card
> numbers; and especially your social Security number.
>
> NEVER buy anything from a company that is listed as forfeited, as
> Jerry Stuckler's are.
> Don't even visit his Phishing and Spoofed websites or ask for more
> information.
> It is like feeding a stray cat. Give it one morsel of food, and it
> will be there all the time.
>
> We're sorry to have to be the ones to tell you all this, but the
> bottom line is, if you want to secure your hard-earned money, then you
> better have your feet on the ground, and don't let yourself be cheated
> by the likes of Jerry Stuckler.
>
> Thank you for your attention.
>
>

OK, you asked for it.

For your information, JDS Computer Training Corporation was NEVER
registered as a Maryland Corporation. So it could NEVER have been
forfeited as a Corporation. In fact, I didn't even live in Maryland in
1996. I challenge you to prove your statement.

The income for this corporation for last year probably exceeded anything
you could possibly make in your lifetime.

I also challenge you to prove any site which have been spoofed.

However, since you have falsely accused me and my corporation of a
criminal offense. I have no choice but to tell everyone that:

Rafael Martinez-Minuesa Martinez (info@1001webs.net)
+34.620443347
Fax:
Puerto Marina
Benalmadena, MALAGA 29630
ES


makes completely unfounded accusations against other people. He is a
liar and cannot support his lies with facts. He is the fraud here.


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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:18:24 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> wrote:
>
>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:42:45 GMT, Doug Baiter
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3 Jan 2008 18:40:30 GMT, John Bokma wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Andy Jacobs 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, I just wanted to let everyone where he crossposted be aware
that he is a known troll.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:18:24 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> wrote:
>
>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:42:45 GMT, Doug Baiter
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3 Jan 2008 18:40:30 GMT, John Bokma wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Andy Jacobs 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, I just wanted to let everyone where he crossposted be aware
that he is a known troll.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2:57 pm, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>> On Jan 5, 3:21 am, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:47:33 GMT, Doug Baiter
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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. Hosting companies DO pay attention to spam
>>>> in alt groups, also. And the good ones don't keep spammers around.
>>> I have already forced you to close one of your SCAM websites:
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thre ad/thread...
>>> Do you want me to go on with the rest?
>> Sorry, the site is still up and the business is going fine.
>
> WHOIS information for http://www.smartechhomes.com
>
> Registrant:
> SMARTECH HOMES, INC.
> 9920 BRIXTON LANE
> Bethesda, Maryland 20817-1501
> United States
>
> Administrative Contact:
> Stucle, Jerry jstuc...@attglobal.net
> SMARTECH HOMES, INC.
> 9920 BRIXTON LANE
> Bethesda, Maryland 20817-1501
> United States
> 3014696605 Fax --
>
> Jerry Stuckle was the principal of SMARTECH HOMES, INC. which has
> been
> forfeited last year by the Maryland Taxpayer Services Division.
>
> Entity Name: SMARTECH HOMES, INC.
> Dept ID #: D07297567
>
> Principal Office (Current): 9920 BRIXTON LANE, BETHESDA, MD 20817
> Resident Agent (Current): JERRY D. STUCKLE, 9920 BRIXTON LANE,
> BETHESDA, MD 20817
>
> DEPT. ACTION - FORFEITURE 10/06/2006 12:03-AM
> THE ENTITY WAS FORFEITED FOR FAILURE TO FILE PROPERTY RETURN FOR
> 2005.
> For a Maryland entity, its existence has been ended by the State for
> some delinquency.
>
> Good Standing: No
>
> However, more than a year after, Jerry Stuckle, showing a deplorable
> lack of business ethics, stills maintains and deploys the website,
> claiming to belong to a reputable company and offering all kinds of
> products and services.
>
> If you have purchased any products or services from these fraudulent
> pages or have been approached by Jerry Stuckle in any way to offer you
> any kind of commercial transaction involving this fake company after
> 10/06/2006, you have most likely been the victim of a FRAUD.
>

Try again, TROLL. You don't see me advertising this corporation in
these newsgroups.

And BTW - the corporation is not registered in Maryland. Try again, troll.


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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2:57 pm, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>> On Jan 5, 3:21 am, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:47:33 GMT, Doug Baiter
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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. Hosting companies DO pay attention to spam
>>>> in alt groups, also. And the good ones don't keep spammers around.
>>> I have already forced you to close one of your SCAM websites:
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thre ad/thread...
>>> Do you want me to go on with the rest?
>> Sorry, the site is still up and the business is going fine.
>
> WHOIS information for http://www.smartechhomes.com
>
> Registrant:
> SMARTECH HOMES, INC.
> 9920 BRIXTON LANE
> Bethesda, Maryland 20817-1501
> United States
>
> Administrative Contact:
> Stucle, Jerry jstuc...@attglobal.net
> SMARTECH HOMES, INC.
> 9920 BRIXTON LANE
> Bethesda, Maryland 20817-1501
> United States
> 3014696605 Fax --
>
> Jerry Stuckle was the principal of SMARTECH HOMES, INC. which has
> been
> forfeited last year by the Maryland Taxpayer Services Division.
>
> Entity Name: SMARTECH HOMES, INC.
> Dept ID #: D07297567
>
> Principal Office (Current): 9920 BRIXTON LANE, BETHESDA, MD 20817
> Resident Agent (Current): JERRY D. STUCKLE, 9920 BRIXTON LANE,
> BETHESDA, MD 20817
>
> DEPT. ACTION - FORFEITURE 10/06/2006 12:03-AM
> THE ENTITY WAS FORFEITED FOR FAILURE TO FILE PROPERTY RETURN FOR
> 2005.
> For a Maryland entity, its existence has been ended by the State for
> some delinquency.
>
> Good Standing: No
>
> However, more than a year after, Jerry Stuckle, showing a deplorable
> lack of business ethics, stills maintains and deploys the website,
> claiming to belong to a reputable company and offering all kinds of
> products and services.
>
> If you have purchased any products or services from these fraudulent
> pages or have been approached by Jerry Stuckle in any way to offer you
> any kind of commercial transaction involving this fake company after
> 10/06/2006, you have most likely been the victim of a FRAUD.
>

Try again, TROLL. You don't see me advertising this corporation in
these newsgroups.

And BTW - the corporation is not registered in Maryland. Try again, troll.


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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:21:20 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> wrote:
>
>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:47:33 GMT, Doug Baiter
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:21:20 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> wrote:
>
>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:47:33 GMT, Doug Baiter
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 10:14:24 GMT, Doug Baiter
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:26:11 -0500, Gary L. Burnore
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:47:33 GMT, Doug Baiter
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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. 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.

However, it may not be a problem from at least one of these for much longer.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 10:14:24 GMT, Doug Baiter
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:26:11 -0500, Gary L. Burnore
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:47:33 GMT, Doug Baiter
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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. 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.

However, it may not be a problem from at least one of these for much longer.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:54:25 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> wrote:
>
>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:18:24 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:42:45 GMT, Doug Baiter
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3 Jan 2008 18:40:30 GMT, John Bokma wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andy Jacobs 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, I have the right to defend myself, also. If you don't like
it, you can ignore the thread.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:54:25 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> wrote:
>
>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:18:24 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:42:45 GMT, Doug Baiter
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3 Jan 2008 18:40:30 GMT, John Bokma wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andy Jacobs 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, I have the right to defend myself, also. If you don't like
it, you can ignore the thread.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:58:48 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> wrote:
>
>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:21:20 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:47:33 GMT, Doug Baiter
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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
==================

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:58:48 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> wrote:
>
>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:21:20 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:47:33 GMT, Doug Baiter
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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
==================

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:00:21 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> wrote:
>
>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 10:14:24 GMT, Doug Baiter
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:26:11 -0500, Gary L. Burnore
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:47:33 GMT, Doug Baiter
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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
==================

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:00:21 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> wrote:
>
>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 10:14:24 GMT, Doug Baiter
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:26:11 -0500, Gary L. Burnore
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:47:33 GMT, Doug Baiter
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan
>>>>>>>> 2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Dick Gaughan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
>>>>>>>>>> 18:04:25 +0000, Andy Jacobs 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
==================

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 06 Jan 2008 04:51:04
GMT Gary L. Burnore scribed:

>>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.

Who are you, the god of the server-side schizoids?

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 06 Jan 2008 04:51:04
GMT Gary L. Burnore scribed:

>>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.

Who are you, the god of the server-side schizoids?

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 06 Jan 2008 04:59:05
GMT Gary L. Burnore scribed:


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

This guy who parks my car uses it as an honorific:

Darryl S. Willoughs, FAQ

(Name fictional. Title means Faggot And Queen.)

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 06 Jan 2008 04:59:05
GMT Gary L. Burnore scribed:


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

This guy who parks my car uses it as an honorific:

Darryl S. Willoughs, FAQ

(Name fictional. Title means Faggot And Queen.)

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

"RafaMinu" wrote in message
news:757c2081-6f50-46f8-a555-

> I have already forced you to close one of your SCAM websites:

Odd. It looks rather open to me :-)

--
Richard.

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

"RafaMinu" wrote in message
news:757c2081-6f50-46f8-a555-

> I have already forced you to close one of your SCAM websites:

Odd. It looks rather open to me :-)

--
Richard.

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

"RafaMinu" wrote
>> >Besides other criminal actions ...
>>
>> Just as I was getting bored of this; sociopath 1001 bloke is back for a
>> second attempt at the argument he lost last time. Oh dear.
>
> If your idea of social integration is to side up with scammers, all I
> can tell you is how sorry I am for you.
>
> And please, stop posting these groups with off-topic wannabe musician
> spam.
> I'm sure there must be hundreds of other places where you can voice
> your incompetence at being a real musician.

Well I'm going to be leaving you to your scamming argument, but for your
information I have been a regular poster with uk.net.web.authoring for years
because as well as a guitar tutor I am progressing well as a web designer.

Good day, and Fuck off.

---dE|_---

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

"RafaMinu" wrote
>> >Besides other criminal actions ...
>>
>> Just as I was getting bored of this; sociopath 1001 bloke is back for a
>> second attempt at the argument he lost last time. Oh dear.
>
> If your idea of social integration is to side up with scammers, all I
> can tell you is how sorry I am for you.
>
> And please, stop posting these groups with off-topic wannabe musician
> spam.
> I'm sure there must be hundreds of other places where you can voice
> your incompetence at being a real musician.

Well I'm going to be leaving you to your scamming argument, but for your
information I have been a regular poster with uk.net.web.authoring for years
because as well as a guitar tutor I am progressing well as a web designer.

Good day, and Fuck off.

---dE|_---

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On 6/1/08 1:10 pm, in article Jq4gj.23407$ov2.21725@newsfe5-win.ntli.net,
"dE|_" wrote:

>
> "RafaMinu" wrote
>>>> Besides other criminal actions ...
>>>
>>> Just as I was getting bored of this; sociopath 1001 bloke is back for a
>>> second attempt at the argument he lost last time. Oh dear.
>>
>> If your idea of social integration is to side up with scammers, all I
>> can tell you is how sorry I am for you.
>>
>> And please, stop posting these groups with off-topic wannabe musician
>> spam.
>> I'm sure there must be hundreds of other places where you can voice
>> your incompetence at being a real musician.
>
> Well I'm going to be leaving you to your scamming argument, but for your
> information I have been a regular poster with uk.net.web.authoring for years
> because as well as a guitar tutor I am progressing well as a web designer.
>
> Good day, and Fuck off.

I wish they'd swap e-mail addresses and continue their pathetic debate
outside of usenet totally.

They are both unprofessional and anyone seeing their childish antics would
never do business with either of them.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

On 6/1/08 1:10 pm, in article Jq4gj.23407$ov2.21725@newsfe5-win.ntli.net,
"dE|_" wrote:

>
> "RafaMinu" wrote
>>>> Besides other criminal actions ...
>>>
>>> Just as I was getting bored of this; sociopath 1001 bloke is back for a
>>> second attempt at the argument he lost last time. Oh dear.
>>
>> If your idea of social integration is to side up with scammers, all I
>> can tell you is how sorry I am for you.
>>
>> And please, stop posting these groups with off-topic wannabe musician
>> spam.
>> I'm sure there must be hundreds of other places where you can voice
>> your incompetence at being a real musician.
>
> Well I'm going to be leaving you to your scamming argument, but for your
> information I have been a regular poster with uk.net.web.authoring for years
> because as well as a guitar tutor I am progressing well as a web designer.
>
> Good day, and Fuck off.

I wish they'd swap e-mail addresses and continue their pathetic debate
outside of usenet totally.

They are both unprofessional and anyone seeing their childish antics would
never do business with either of them.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:53:14 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> 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.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:53:14 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> 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.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 6, 4:53 am, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>> On Jan 5, 2:56 pm, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 5, 3:18 am, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:42:45 GMT, Doug Baiter
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3 Jan 2008 18:40:30 GMT, John Bokma wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Andy Jacobs 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
>>>>>>>>> nos...@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.
>>>>>> The serious people in a.w.w. have him blocked. I don't even see his
>>>>>> posts unless someone copies him. Most others don't, either.
>>>>> Most honest people have you blocked, because you are a scammer, as I
>>>>> have proved in previous posts:
>>>>> SCAM Alert - Jerry Stuckle
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thre ad/thread...
>>>>> FRAUD Alert - SMARTECH HOMES, INC.:
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thre ad/thread...
>>>>> Besides other criminal actions ...
>>>> ROFLMAO! Try again, TROLL. As you've been told before3, in the United
>>>> States, a corporation can be registered in ANY state.
>>>> But your claims of fraud are criminal. Would you like me to contact the
>>>> Federal District Attorney's office? Being in the Washington, DC, area,
>>>> I do know people there. And some of them are my customers.
>>>> And the U.S. does have extradition agreements with Spain. How would you
>>>> like to have free room and board for the next 10 years, courtesy of the
>>>> U.S. Government?
>>>> And be sure about your answer. Because once they start, they won't stop
>>>> just because you ask them to - or apologize. They won't stop until they
>>>> have a verdict against you.
>>>> Of course, you might get off. And it would only cost you $20-50K US in
>>>> attorney's fees...
>>> Since you asked for it:
>>> We believe that you should all know that the member of these Groups
>>> named Jerry Stuckle, who advertises himself as the MD of JDS Computer
>>> Training Corp. is blatantly lying in each and every message he posts
>>> with the unequivocally purpose of committing FRAUD.
>>> There's no such JDS Computer Training corporation and there has never
>>> been one.
>>> The only JDS Computer company that existed in Maryland was forfeited
>>> in 1996 by the Maryland Taxpayer Services Division.
>>> In case you ignore it, for a Maryland entity to be forfeited, means
>>> that its existence has been ended by the State for some delinquency.
>>> If you have been the victim of any Jerry Stuckle's scams, or have been
>>> approached by him in any way to offer you any kind of commercial
>>> transaction involving his fake companies, you can report it to the
>>> Federal Trade Commission or by contacting your State Attorneys
>>> General:
>>> http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org/stateattorneygeneralli st.php
>>> Your state Attorney General or local office of consumer protection is
>>> also listed in the government pages of your telephone book.
>>> Any kind of Internet Fraud that might have been committed by Jerry
>>> Stuckler can be reported by contacting the U.S. government's Internet
>>> Crime Complaint Center (IC3) at:
>>> http://www.ic3.gov/complaint/
>>> You may also contact the FBI Internet Fraud Complaint Center:
>>> http://www.ifccfbi.gov/index.asp
>>> If you have fallen victim of a Phishing scam originated at any of the
>>> fake Jerry Stuckler's pages, such as the one at:
>>> http://www.icca.org/member/memberpage.asp?id=400
>>> you can report it at the Consumer Fraud Reporting website:
>>> http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org/
>>> If you are approached by Jerry Stuckler, please don't give out any
>>> financial information, such as checking account and credit card
>>> numbers; and especially your social Security number.
>>> NEVER buy anything from a company that is listed as forfeited, as
>>> Jerry Stuckler's are.
>>> Don't even visit his Phishing and Spoofed websites or ask for more
>>> information.
>>> It is like feeding a stray cat. Give it one morsel of food, and it
>>> will be there all the time.
>>> We're sorry to have to be the ones to tell you all this, but the
>>> bottom line is, if you want to secure your hard-earned money, then you
>>> better have your feet on the ground, and don't let yourself be cheated
>>> by the likes of Jerry Stuckler.
>>> Thank you for your attention.
>> OK, you asked for it.
>>
>> For your information, JDS Computer Training Corporation was NEVER
>> registered as a Maryland Corporation. So it could NEVER have been
>> forfeited as a Corporation. In fact, I didn't even live in Maryland in
>> 1996. I challenge you to prove your statement.
> For your information, JDS Computer Training Corporation was NEVER
> registered as any Corporation.
> It is a FRAUD sheme of yours.
>

WRONG ANSWER, FRAUD. It has been and is registered. You just can't
find a web page for it. Sorry, troll.

>> The income for this corporation for last year probably exceeded anything
>> you could possibly make in your lifetime.
> Then you'll have to be made accountable for all that fraudulent
> income.
>

Not at all, stoopid troll. It's all completely legal. Unlike your
shady 1001webs operation.

>> I also challenge you to prove any site which have been spoofed.
> I have already.
>
>> However, since you have falsely accused me and my corporation of a
>> criminal offense. I have no choice but to tell everyone that:
>>
>> Rafael Martinez-Minuesa Martinez (i...@1001webs.net)
>> +34.620443347
>> Fax:
>> Puerto Marina
>> Benalmadena, MALAGA 29630
>> ES
>>
>> 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.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

RafaMinu wrote:
> On Jan 6, 4:53 am, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>> On Jan 5, 2:56 pm, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> RafaMinu wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 5, 3:18 am, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:42:45 GMT, Doug Baiter
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3 Jan 2008 18:40:30 GMT, John Bokma wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Andy Jacobs 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
>>>>>>>>> nos...@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.
>>>>>> The serious people in a.w.w. have him blocked. I don't even see his
>>>>>> posts unless someone copies him. Most others don't, either.
>>>>> Most honest people have you blocked, because you are a scammer, as I
>>>>> have proved in previous posts:
>>>>> SCAM Alert - Jerry Stuckle
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thre ad/thread...
>>>>> FRAUD Alert - SMARTECH HOMES, INC.:
>>>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thre ad/thread...
>>>>> Besides other criminal actions ...
>>>> ROFLMAO! Try again, TROLL. As you've been told before3, in the United
>>>> States, a corporation can be registered in ANY state.
>>>> But your claims of fraud are criminal. Would you like me to contact the
>>>> Federal District Attorney's office? Being in the Washington, DC, area,
>>>> I do know people there. And some of them are my customers.
>>>> And the U.S. does have extradition agreements with Spain. How would you
>>>> like to have free room and board for the next 10 years, courtesy of the
>>>> U.S. Government?
>>>> And be sure about your answer. Because once they start, they won't stop
>>>> just because you ask them to - or apologize. They won't stop until they
>>>> have a verdict against you.
>>>> Of course, you might get off. And it would only cost you $20-50K US in
>>>> attorney's fees...
>>> Since you asked for it:
>>> We believe that you should all know that the member of these Groups
>>> named Jerry Stuckle, who advertises himself as the MD of JDS Computer
>>> Training Corp. is blatantly lying in each and every message he posts
>>> with the unequivocally purpose of committing FRAUD.
>>> There's no such JDS Computer Training corporation and there has never
>>> been one.
>>> The only JDS Computer company that existed in Maryland was forfeited
>>> in 1996 by the Maryland Taxpayer Services Division.
>>> In case you ignore it, for a Maryland entity to be forfeited, means
>>> that its existence has been ended by the State for some delinquency.
>>> If you have been the victim of any Jerry Stuckle's scams, or have been
>>> approached by him in any way to offer you any kind of commercial
>>> transaction involving his fake companies, you can report it to the
>>> Federal Trade Commission or by contacting your State Attorneys
>>> General:
>>> http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org/stateattorneygeneralli st.php
>>> Your state Attorney General or local office of consumer protection is
>>> also listed in the government pages of your telephone book.
>>> Any kind of Internet Fraud that might have been committed by Jerry
>>> Stuckler can be reported by contacting the U.S. government's Internet
>>> Crime Complaint Center (IC3) at:
>>> http://www.ic3.gov/complaint/
>>> You may also contact the FBI Internet Fraud Complaint Center:
>>> http://www.ifccfbi.gov/index.asp
>>> If you have fallen victim of a Phishing scam originated at any of the
>>> fake Jerry Stuckler's pages, such as the one at:
>>> http://www.icca.org/member/memberpage.asp?id=400
>>> you can report it at the Consumer Fraud Reporting website:
>>> http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org/
>>> If you are approached by Jerry Stuckler, please don't give out any
>>> financial information, such as checking account and credit card
>>> numbers; and especially your social Security number.
>>> NEVER buy anything from a company that is listed as forfeited, as
>>> Jerry Stuckler's are.
>>> Don't even visit his Phishing and Spoofed websites or ask for more
>>> information.
>>> It is like feeding a stray cat. Give it one morsel of food, and it
>>> will be there all the time.
>>> We're sorry to have to be the ones to tell you all this, but the
>>> bottom line is, if you want to secure your hard-earned money, then you
>>> better have your feet on the ground, and don't let yourself be cheated
>>> by the likes of Jerry Stuckler.
>>> Thank you for your attention.
>> OK, you asked for it.
>>
>> For your information, JDS Computer Training Corporation was NEVER
>> registered as a Maryland Corporation. So it could NEVER have been
>> forfeited as a Corporation. In fact, I didn't even live in Maryland in
>> 1996. I challenge you to prove your statement.
> For your information, JDS Computer Training Corporation was NEVER
> registered as any Corporation.
> It is a FRAUD sheme of yours.
>

WRONG ANSWER, FRAUD. It has been and is registered. You just can't
find a web page for it. Sorry, troll.

>> The income for this corporation for last year probably exceeded anything
>> you could possibly make in your lifetime.
> Then you'll have to be made accountable for all that fraudulent
> income.
>

Not at all, stoopid troll. It's all completely legal. Unlike your
shady 1001webs operation.

>> I also challenge you to prove any site which have been spoofed.
> I have already.
>
>> However, since you have falsely accused me and my corporation of a
>> criminal offense. I have no choice but to tell everyone that:
>>
>> Rafael Martinez-Minuesa Martinez (i...@1001webs.net)
>> +34.620443347
>> Fax:
>> Puerto Marina
>> Benalmadena, MALAGA 29630
>> ES
>>
>> 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.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:43:32 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> wrote:
>
>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:54:25 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:18:24 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:42:45 GMT, Doug Baiter
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3 Jan 2008 18:40:30 GMT, John Bokma wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andy Jacobs 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 fuck off, troll. I don't give a damn what you and your
spam friends think.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:43:32 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> wrote:
>
>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:54:25 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:18:24 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:42:45 GMT, Doug Baiter
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3 Jan 2008 18:40:30 GMT, John Bokma wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andy Jacobs 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 fuck off, troll. I don't give a damn what you and your
spam friends think.

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

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:50:20 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> 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 fuck 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, dipshit, I do.
>

You wish. Who do you think you are - God? You're just a little asshole
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
==================

Re: Usability Job Opportunities

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:50:20 -0500, Jerry Stuckle
> 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 fuck 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, dipshit, I do.
>

You wish. Who do you think you are - God? You're just a little asshole
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
==================