Usability Job Opportunities

[Doug Baiter]

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?

 

[Doug Baiter]

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
(e-mail address removed).

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...

 

[Doug Baiter]

The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.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.

 

[Doug Baiter]

It's been dismissed as virtually meaningless for quite a while, now.
SPAM has changed, but the index hasn't.


Fine. I am reading this in a.w.w., and it is spam here.


So you have some meaningless, out of date measurement which doesn't say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.


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 )

 

[Doug Baiter]

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... )

 

[Doug Baiter]

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 )

 

[Gary L. Burnore]

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.
--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================

 

[Gary L. Burnore]

It's been dismissed as virtually meaningless for quite a while, now.
SPAM has changed, but the index hasn't.


Fine. I am reading this in a.w.w., and it is spam here.


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.


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.

--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================

 

[Gary L. Burnore]

<snip rubbish>
Ooops, nothing left...

That's it? The best you can do? Figures.
--
gburnore at DataBasix dot Com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³
Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase
===========================================================================

 

[RafaMinu]

See, that's what makes you a terrible troll. Your attempts to draw
people into a fight are so transparent.  Sure, you might get Jerry
Stuckle to go a few rounds with you using bait like that, but it'll be
far from a group-disrupting trolling.  I'm convinced that a really
good troll goes straight for the throat when it comes to disrupting a
group.  This trying to appear on-topic business just doesn't work
well. Instead, try taking on a really divisive topic like politics or
religion.  First, it is seriously off-topic, which will automatically
make almost everyone mad.  Second, no matter what position you take,
you're bound to get about 50% of the group to argue with you.  Last,
after the first 50% of the group gets to arguing with you, the other
50% will jump in to defend you.  The more controversial a topic is,
the better.  Since you're big on cut & paste, try pasting one of
Iran's Prime Minister's rants about how the Holocaust is a myth or
something.  I'm just saying, if you want to be a troll, try harder
because right now you're failing miserably.

You have a twisted mind Karl, serously now.
The only reason for me posting here was to provide useful information
to some people more capable and proficient than I am.
I'm not an accessibility (or usability) expert, but I know that there
are people in these Groups who are.
Same reason for posting a link to We7. I am not a musician, but if the
information I posted helps someone to publish their songs it'll make
me happy.

There's no hidden agenda here. The only remote interest I can derive
from posting something that might be of interest to other people is
that maybe some day they'll come across some opprtunity that could fit
me and will let me know.
A side effect that was also expected from this thread was to generate
a fruitful discussion about Jobs focusing on accessibility issues and
I also hoped to learn something from it.

So far, I'm about the only poster that has made any reference to the
topic that incidentally I had started as well.
If you don't like the thread that's perfectly fine with me, just stay
away from it.
It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and even mathematically
that this post is not spam.
However you keep sabotaging it, while at the same time I see that many
of you engage in off-topic discussions about religion, politics and
whatever you feel like and that's perfectly accepted.
To me it isn't, but I don't go around telling people what they can
talk about and what they can not.

 

[Sherman Pendley]

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--

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

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.
(e-mail address removed)
==================

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

Dick Gaughan wrote:
In <[email protected]> on Thu, 03 Jan
2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle <[email protected]>
wrote:

Dick Gaughan wrote:
In <C3A2D429.F13D%[email protected]> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008

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.
(e-mail address removed)
==================

 

[dE|_]

"RafaMinu" say =

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.

 

[RafaMinu]

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....1672ce2805/a5cbbbc8ba81b63c?#a5cbbbc8ba81b63c

FRAUD Alert - SMARTECH HOMES, INC.:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thread/thread/f060789f62bf5263

Besides other criminal actions ...

 

[RafaMinu]

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 03 Jan
2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle <[email protected]>
wrote:
Dick Gaughan wrote:
In <C3A2D429.F13D%[email protected]> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008
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_thread/thread/f060789f62bf5263

Do you want me to go on with the rest?

 

[Doug Baiter]

Dick Gaughan wrote:
In <[email protected]> on Thu, 03 Jan
2008 14:03:11 -0500, Jerry Stuckle <[email protected]>
wrote:

Dick Gaughan wrote:
In <C3A2D429.F13D%[email protected]> on Thu, 03 Jan 2008

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 ). Nevertheless, please
accept my apologies for the mistake.

 

[Doug Baiter]

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
(e-mail address removed).

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!

 

[RafaMinu]

"RafaMinu" say =

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.

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

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
(e-mail address removed).
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....1672ce2805/a5cbbbc8ba81b63c?#a5cbbbc8ba81b63c

FRAUD Alert - SMARTECH HOMES, INC.:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thread/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.
(e-mail address removed)
==================