Usability Job Opportunities

[Jerry Stuckle]

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The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.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So you have some meaningless, out of date measurement which doesn't say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?

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

 

[RafaMinu]

Gary L. Burnore 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
(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.html.critique/browse_thread/thread...

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

 

[RafaMinu]

Gary L. Burnore 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.

I have already forced you to close one of your SCAM websites:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thread/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 (e-mail address removed)
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.

 

[dE|_]

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....ead/thread/a995681672ce2805/a5cbbbc8ba81b63c?>#a5cbbbc8ba81b63c

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

 

[dE|_]

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|_---

 

[Doug Baiter]

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

 

[Dick Gaughan]

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 03 Jan

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.

 

[Gary L. Burnore]

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.

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.
--
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]

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, 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.

Only if it's real spam. What you're calling spam isn't. There are
very specific rules.

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.

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?
--
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]

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, 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.

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 )

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.*.
--
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]

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 03 Jan


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.

There aren't unless the complaint is false and the ISP doesn't check
it out first.

A few of the more responsible ones, like mine, might be
arsed on an otherwise slow day to take action on >=BI.

BI>20 is spam. Most NSP's will, indeed, do something about that.

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.

Hammer. Nail. Head.

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.

Only k00ks claim SPAM based on content.

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.

Spam is anything HE doesn't like to read. Problem for him: He's not
an NSP.
--
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
===========================================================================

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

Gary L. Burnore 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
(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.html.critique/browse_thread/thread...
FRAUD Alert - SMARTECH HOMES, INC.:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thread/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/stateattorneygenerallist.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 ([email protected])
+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.
(e-mail address removed)
==================

 

[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.

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

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

Gary L. Burnore 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.
I have already forced you to close one of your SCAM websites:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html.critique/browse_thread/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 (e-mail address removed)
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.
(e-mail address removed)
==================

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, 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.

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.

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.

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

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, 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.

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 )

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

 

[Gary L. Burnore]

OK, you asked for it.

Did the people of comp.lang.php ask for it? I think 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]

Gary L. Burnore 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
(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.

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.
--
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]

Try again, TROLL.

So much for sorry, eh Jerry?
--
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]

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 20:49:31 -0500, 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.

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.

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.

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.

And it DOES mean something.

Nothing at all.

Sorry.
Liar.

Your arguments don't work.

It's not an argument, it's a fact.

They're too far out of date.

Good thing is, you don't get to decide.

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'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.

- 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?
--
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
===========================================================================