Usability Job Opportunities

[Gary L. Burnore]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:26:11 -0500, 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The Breidbart Index is woefully out of date.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So you have some meaningless, out of date measurement which doesn't say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.*.

Sorry, Gary.
Liar.


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.

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?




--
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]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:18:24 -0500, 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.

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

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:21:20 -0500, Jerry Stuckle

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.

Sorry, you 're about 10 years behind the curve.

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.

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.

Nothing at all.


Liar.

You're the one calling someone a LIAR! ROFLMAO!

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.

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

Neither do you.

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.

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?

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

 

[Gary L. Burnore]

Gary L. Burnore wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:18:24 -0500, 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.

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.

--
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]

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.
--
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]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:26:11 -0500, 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.*.

Sorry, Gary.

Liar.

Let's see you prove that statement, Gary. Otherwise you're just as bad
as the troll is.

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.

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

 

[Gary L. Burnore]

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.

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.

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.

Neither do you.

Actually, dipshit, I do.

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.

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.

I think not.

You missed a comma. You surely meant "I think, NOT.", since you're
not thinking.

What would your employer do if he/she found out?

Nothing, unless of course I really WAS a fraud. Are you?

Wrong, Gary. And has been for years.
Liar.


You are woefully out of date.

You are woefully outgunned.
--
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 Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:26:11 -0500, 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.*.
Sorry, Gary.

Liar.

Let's see you prove that statement, Gary.

You're doing it for me, Jerry. YOU are still posting to comp.lang.php
and he's not "making you do it". YOU are the one posting off charter.
YOU. Not him.

you're just as bad as the troll is.

Ok, let's tell your employer you're a criminal and a fraud. See if you
like it?

Go for it, dipshit. I've been called far worse. My employer is
DataBasix.com. OOPS! Too bad for you.

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.

Poor little tard. You should surely soon be quoting that Jerry
Terranson website and stepping right into kookdom. Once you find it,
you'll see why I feel safe in saying that people who make up false
shit about you don't matter. YOU're the one who's making a fool of
yourself.

So from now on I'll just ignore you - like the ignorant should be.


No lies. Just showing the ISP's what they've done.
Liar.


And fine - post all you want to comcast. It doesn't bother me, because I
don't spam.

You post off charter. You're doing it right now. Prove otherwise.

--
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
===========================================================================

 

[Neredbojias]

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

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]

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 ****** And Queen.)

 

[Gary L. Burnore]

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



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

I've heard that called a lot of things, but never "parks my car". You
guys gonna get married?

Darryl S. Willoughs, FAQ

(Name fictional. Title means ****** And Queen.)

--
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
===========================================================================

 

[rf]

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

Odd. It looks rather open to me

 

[RafaMinu]

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.

 

[RafaMinu]

RafaMinu wrote:
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.

For your information, JDS Computer Training Corporation was NEVER
registered as any Corporation.
It is a FRAUD sheme of yours.

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.

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 ([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.

Sue me, then.

 

[RafaMinu]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:21:20 -0500, 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.

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.

You did start it.
It's there for everyone to see.

 

[RafaMinu]

47:33 GMT, Doug Baiter <[email protected]>
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.

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.

You are the one that attacked me.
Funny that being a SCAMMER, you have the nerve to attack honest
people.
Proof that besides being a scammer, you are an idiotic moron as well.

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

Kiss my arse, Jerry.

 

[RafaMinu]

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:58:48 -0500, 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.
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.

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.

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.

Nothing at all.

Liar.

You're the one calling someone a LIAR!  ROFLMAO!

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.

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

Neither do you.

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.

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?

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.

You DON'T get to say what SPAM is, you pitiful SCAMMER.
The Usenet is not yours and there are far more knowledgeable and
experienced people than you who know much better than you.
If you were not so arrogant and had just a little bit of common sense
you'd listen to them.

 

[dE|_]

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 **** off.

---dE|_---

 

[Chaddy2222]

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 **** off.

I was wondering when you were going to fit that last part in. It's one
of the best posts of the thread.

 

[Andy Jacobs]

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 **** 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.