J
D
Daniel Pitts
john said:
That site sucks.
C
Christopher Benson-Manica
Then why did you give the spammer the free publicity it wanted?
J
John Ersatznom
Christopher said:
He didn't give "it" any more than "it" got "it"self with the initial
post, unless he broadened the newsgroup list. As far as I can tell, if
anything he narrowed it to just cljp.
Also, if every posting of a URL, even when it's seemingly (at least
tangentially) on topic, constitutes spamming, then an awful lot of the
regulars in this group are spammers.
C
Christopher Benson-Manica
John Ersatznom said:
Every additional mention of a spammed URL increases the likelihood
that it will be seen and visited. (Or perhaps I am merely being too
comp.lang.c about the situation...)
Also, if every posting of a URL, even when it's seemingly (at least
tangentially) on topic, constitutes spamming, then an awful lot of the
regulars in this group are spammers.
Posting URLs might be acceptable when they are accompanied by some
on-topic introductory text, say "There is some good information here
about Java". As it stands, the original post looks like some generic,
throwaway post to drive traffic to yet another wannabe Official Source
For Everything.
J
John Ersatznom
Christopher said:
If the mentions are in independent locations, that's true. But the
likelihood is changed the *least* in the precise situation that
occurred, where one occurrence is in the parent of the other occurrence
and in the exact same groups. They tend to be either both seen, or
neither seen, by any given person in that case.
It's a pretty iffy call in this case. The post that started this thread
was, you must admit, a far cry from things like someone writing "#3rb4l
V1Agr4!!! Get it while it's hot!" (continuing with several links to
dubious www.foo.ru servers, or even blind IP addresses) and massively
x-posting it to every group in the world *except* alt.pharmaceuticals ...
O
Oliver Wong
John Ersatznom said:Also, if every posting of a URL, even when it's seemingly (at least
tangentially) on topic, constitutes spamming, then an awful lot of the
regulars in this group are spammers.
FWIW, my definition of a newsgroup spammer (and I don't necessarily
expect anyone else to share this definition) is someone who makes a post
with no intent to read the replies.
- Oliver
J
John Ersatznom
Oliver said:
That definition makes everyone who's ever posted "PLONK!" anywhere on
Usenet into a spammer.
O
Oliver Wong
John Ersatznom said:
No, they may still be willing to read replies to that "PLONK" post (as
long as it's not from the person who got plonked).
- Oliver
J
John Ersatznom
Oliver said:
Who replies to a plonk post, though? Except, occasionally and
pointlessly, the person who got plonked. (Maybe seeking to have the last
word?)
C
Christopher Benson-Manica
John Ersatznom said:
Well, on comp.lang.c at least, a PLONK has a non-zero chance of
eliciting a post to the effect of "Please keep your plonks to
yourself"
J
John Ersatznom
Christopher said:Well, on comp.lang.c at least, a PLONK has a non-zero chance of
eliciting a post to the effect of "Please keep your plonks to
yourself"
Does anyone ever read these?
O
Oliver Wong
John Ersatznom said:
Yes. Christopher Benson-Manica has read it at least once, or else he
wouldn't have known about them.
- Oliver
J
jupiter
Christopher Benson-Manica said:
I read the spam and immediately went to the first reply, which
definitely provided me with the proper feedback.
I've always believed in kicking the shit out of spam. If a newbie
can see it getting the shit kicked out of it and still clicks on
the link, well, it's not my Good Samaritan's job to save him. Some
people cannot be saved.
I also thought "That site sucks" was a nice boost of humor for the
otherwise dreary day. It's pithy and full of inyourendo. Three
words and a period, that's all it took. That is like nice code,
isn't it?
J
jupiter
Oliver Wong said:
Has anybody done a scan of that OP at the byte code level?
[ducking]
J
John Ersatznom
jupiter said:
You'll probably find that all his methods are private and he doesn't
declare a public interface. (Just like most large corporations with
their unsupportably bad products and/or services, not to mention most
women, these days.)
C
Christopher Benson-Manica
John Ersatznom said:
I'm a man, not vaporware ;-) (The buyMeBeer() method is public and
can work around most any internal bugs, although I'm not unit tested.)
J
John Ersatznom
Christopher said:
Not much help to me. Seems you're a singleton with a private constructor
and I've never met your factory class let alone accessed her public
interface.
What's a man to do?
A
Aki Laukkanen
John said:
Well, showing up well dressed[1] and groomed on the first date and
buying her flowers won't hurt.
Also, you *could* express your desire to "access her pub(l)ic interface"
with a little more delicate phrasing. Most women tend to take offence if
you call their interface public, even if it is. ("Would you like to come
over to my place for coffee and a nice chat?" works wonders in many
cases. "Would you like to dance?" can give you a nice feel of her public
members, too. *wink*)
[1] No, I do not mean the _clean_ anime T-shirt, I'm talking pressed
trousers and white collars here.
J
John Ersatznom
Aki said:
Isn't that only applicable to those really formal occasions where nobody
shows up without at least three layers of indirection and a veritable
cloud of auxiliary classes serving their needs? You know the type, all
hoity-toity in their fancy JDBC getups and sequined all over with EJBs
and gold-plated servlet containers...you know, the upper *business*
class that look down their noses at a mere JavaBean and aspire to hobnob
with the *real* Bank-and-BankAccount set, though they keep getting
nothing but SecurityExceptions...