Usability Job Opportunities

[Jerry Stuckle]

trying to get him spammed in email, eh Jerry? Very lame.

Nope, just exposing a fraud for who he really is.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
(e-mail address removed)
==================

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

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.

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

Then you'll have to be made accountable for all that fraudulent
income.

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

I have already.


Sue me, then.

You'd like that, wouldn't you? But I don't need to sue you. There are
other ways to handle people like you. I prefer the legal ways.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
(e-mail address removed)
==================

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 22:54:25 -0500, Jerry Stuckle

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.

I will call spam what it is.

So you can just **** off, troll. I don't give a damn what you and your
spam friends think.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
(e-mail address removed)
==================

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

Nope. Not at all, Jerry. Frequently Asked Questions are QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS, not an inforceable doc.

Guess again, troll. ISP's have closed accounts of your spammer friends
because they improperly posted spam to alt newsgroups.

Ok, then you'll have no problem when comcast nukes you. Cool.

No problem at all - but they won't, because I don't spam - unlike you.

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

Who gives a flying **** what you think? You are nobody.

Actually, dipshit, I do.

You wish. Who do you think you are - God? You're just a little asshole
with a keyboard. Nothing more.

And you have every right to have your posting priv's at giganews nuked
for off charter posts to a comp group.

Like this posting if yours is off topic? Maybe you need to get nuked?

Go ahead and try it, stoopid. You don't have the power.

Yep. Because I know you're a fool.

Yea, I guess you're used to it. It seems a lot of people have called
you that.

You're just a troll - and even more stoopid than most trolls.

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

Nope, that's your line.

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

Ah, but you've already proven you're a fraud. So no problem.

But how much do greeters at WalMart make, anyway?

Liar.

Wrong again, Gary. Has been for years.

You are woefully outgunned.

Not by you. You couldn't outgun a 4 year old with a pea shooter.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
(e-mail address removed)
==================

 

[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.
Only if it's real spam. What you're calling spam isn't. There are
very specific rules.
And according to the FAQ's in a.w.w, it is spam.
A FAQ is only a list of frequently asked questions, Jerry. It is no
way enforceable and can't change the meaning of the word. >> They're
called alt. for a reason.

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

Gee, it's the good ones who cancel accounts because I show them the
spam.
Nope. Only a fool would believe what you're calling spam is actually
spam.

Only a fool would believe unsolicited ads where they are not wanted is
not SPAM.

However, it seems you've just called a lot of respected hosting
companies fools.

It is ENFORCEABLE (get a spell checker).
More proof of how you really are? Good! You're showing every newbie
in comp.lang.php that you're an idiot. Hope that's what you wanted.
It's what you're getting.

Nope. Just that YOU are. Can't even afford a spell checker.

And it DOES mean something.
Nothing at all.
Sorry.
Liar.

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

Your arguments don't work.
It's not an argument, it's a fact.

Show me where it is a FACT. Otherwise, it is just YOUR OPINION. And
YOUR ARGUMENT.

They're too far out of date.
Good thing is, you don't get to decide.

Neither do you.

But in this case the op is a troll well-known in a.w.w. He just morphed
names, and it took a little while to catch on (good catch, Karl!).
SO? What does that have to do with comp.lang.php?
I didn't start it.
So you're so controlled you simply MUST post to comp.lang.php. Got
it. You're owned, bigtime.

I have the right to defend myself - especially against charges of
criminal activity. Period. You don't like it? Ignore the thread if
you don't like it.

I'm just trying to show people who Rafael
Martinez-Minuesa Martinez really is
You're doing just fine at showing he's the holder of your leash. Now
sit like a good little poodle.

ROFLMAO! You're even more stoopid than most people if you believe that.

And if I called you a fraud and a liar, will you just ignore it? I
think not. What would your employer do if he/she found out?

- a troll and a spammer.
SPAM is BI>20. His post was off topic, sure. But not spam. If you're
saying off topic is spam then your posts to comp.lang.php (and
comp.infosystems.www..... are spam too). Difference being: YOU can
lose your account for it faster than he can. Wanna see?

Wrong, Gary. And has been for years. You are woefully out of date.

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.

And neither do you, trolling fraud. But the newsgroup regulars do. And
the majority of them have classified your posts as SPAM.

Sorry, troll.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
(e-mail address removed)
==================

 

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

And according to the FAQ's in a.w.w, it is spam. And this is.

Hosting companies DO pay attention to spam
in alt groups, also. And the good ones don't keep spammers around.
The good ones would ignore frivolus complaints. The good ones know
that FAQ stands for Frequently asked Questions, not an inforcable
document and that charters mean nothing in non-moderated alt groups.
They're called alt. for a reason.

Gee, it's the good ones who cancel accounts because I show them the
spam. It is ENFORCEABLE (get a spell checker). And it DOES mean something.

Sorry. Your arguments don't work. They're too far out of date.

But in this case the op is a troll well-known in a.w.w. He just morphed
names, and it took a little while to catch on (good catch, Karl!).
SO? What does that have to do with comp.lang.php?

I didn't start it. I'm just trying to show people who Rafael
Martinez-Minuesa Martinez really is - a troll and a spammer.

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

Wrong answer, Rafael. You started it by spamming several newsgroups.

Sorry, liar and fraud. You're just a troll.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
(e-mail address removed)
==================

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:00:21 -0500, Jerry Stuckle

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.

And your posts are on topic? ROFLMAO! Pot-Kettle-Black.

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

Oh, you mean the one who can't even keep a website running? ROFLMAO!

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.

A lot more than just one website, troll.

Liar.

Sorry, troll. No lies.

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

And your post is on charter? ROFLMAO!

Pot-Kettle-Black.


--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
(e-mail address removed)
==================

 

[Andy Jacobs]

On 6/1/08 2:26 pm, in article (e-mail address removed),

You wish. Who do you think you are - God? You're just a little asshole
with a keyboard. Nothing more.

Here's the deal. I seriously think that nobody in uk.net.web.authoring is
interested. How about you stop following up to this group unless someone
here expresses an absolute desire to see your ramblings.

Seems reasonable.

Maybe someone out there knows if there are any grounds for complaint to his
SP based on the fact that his posts are starting to become offensive? Or
are there any other grounds for complaint where we really could get him
dropped? I'm not talking about armchair law, I'm talking about hard facts.

If that IS the case, who do we complain to? I'll log one this afternoon.

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

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.
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.

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.

You'd like that, wouldn't you, Rafael. But I'm not into boys.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
(e-mail address removed)
==================

 

[Gary L. Burnore]

Nope, just exposing a fraud for who he really is.

Psst. You're ignoring me, remember?
--
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]

You'd like that, wouldn't you? But I don't need to sue you. There are
other ways to handle people like you. I prefer the legal ways.

So you're a k00k, eh stuckkie? Figures. Since when has suing become
illegal?
--
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]

Guess again, troll.

Still ignoring me, I see. How's that going? Why can't you just stop
adding comp.lang.php?

ISP's have closed accounts of your spammer friends
because they improperly posted spam to alt newsgroups.

Liar I've no spammer friends. I've had the same two accounts for
more than 13 years. Too bad you can't say the same.

No problem at all - but they won't, because I don't spam - unlike you.

Yet another lie. Got any proof I've spammed? Looks like those
calling you a fraud are right.

Who gives a flying **** what you think?

You obviously do. And, since you cna't answer the question, you
obviously know I'm right.

You are nobody.

You are so owned.

You wish. Who do you think you are - God? You're just a little asshole
with a keyboard. Nothing more.


Like this posting if yours is off topic? Maybe you need to get nuked?

Let's review. You post crap to comp.lang.php, I ask you to stop. I'm
not crossposting to comp.lang.php, I'm already here. OOPs, you lose
again.

Go ahead and try it, stoopid.
Ok.


You don't have the power.

Guess we'll see. Maybe I do, maybe I don't. I DO know that, at
minimum, you're showing EVERYONE in comp.lang.php that you have
1. No self control
2. No CLUE
C. No respect for anyone ELSE in comp.lang.php

Thanks for showing your true colors!

Yea, I guess you're used to it.

Yeah, I've seen a lot of fools in my days. You're right up there at
the top.

It seems a lot of people have called you that.

IKWIABWAY noted.

You're just a troll - and even more stoopid than most trolls.


Nope, that's your line.

IKWIABWAY #2. Gonna try for two?

Ah, but you've already proven you're a fraud. So no problem.

There it is, #3. Good job. I knew you could do it.

But how much do greeters at WalMart make, anyway?

That's it? The best you've got. Damn, stuckkie you're lame.

Wrong again, Gary. Has been for years.

You can say that as many times as you like and you're still wrong.
Besisdes, unlike you, I really do have the power to decide. You're
still not even smart enough to know why. Funny, that.

Not by you. You couldn't outgun a 4 year old with a pea shooter.

IKWIABWAY #4. Gotta be a record.

Oh, how's that "ignoring me" going?
--
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 6/1/08 2:26 pm, in article (e-mail address removed),



Here's the deal. I seriously think that nobody in uk.net.web.authoring is
interested. How about you stop following up to this group unless someone
here expresses an absolute desire to see your ramblings.

Seems reasonable.

Maybe someone out there knows if there are any grounds for complaint to his
SP based on the fact that his posts are starting to become offensive? Or
are there any other grounds for complaint where we really could get him
dropped? I'm not talking about armchair law, I'm talking about hard facts.

If that IS the case, who do we complain to? I'll log one this afternoon.

You'll not be able to do much about the offensive contact, but you CAN
comlain that the posts are off charter for any one of
uk.net.web.autoring, comp.lang.php and
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html

The complaint would go to comcast and giganews (abuse @ comcast.com
and abuse @ giganews.com) Be sure to include the FULL headers for
each post and don't put the posts in a separate file. Paste several
in one email, separate it with lines

----------------------------------------
one post
----------------------------------------
one post
----------------------------------------

etc.

And be sure to simply state your case. Don't demand, don't whine like
Jerry.


If comcast and giganews get complaints from several different people,
they'll tell him to stop. If he doesn't stop, he'll soon be posting
from somewhere else. Once he gets the idea that each time he does
it, he'll get nuked, he might just wise up.

--
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 13:40:11
GMT Chaddy2222 scribed:

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

Face it, Chaddy, this thread doesn't have any "best" parts. What tickles
me, though, are the spam accusations. In the general sense, the whole
thread is spam.

 

[Gary L. Burnore]

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.

Gee, it's the good ones who cancel accounts because I show them the
spam.
Nope. Only a fool would believe what you're calling spam is actually
spam.
Only a fool would believe unsolicited ads where they are not wanted is
not SPAM.

However, it seems you've just called a lot of respected hosting
companies fools.



It is ENFORCEABLE (get a spell checker).
More proof of how you really are? Good! You're showing every newbie
in comp.lang.php that you're an idiot. Hope that's what you wanted.
It's what you're getting.
Nope. Just that YOU are. Can't even afford a spell checker.

And it DOES mean something.
Nothing at all.
Sorry.
Liar.
You're the one calling someone a LIAR! ROFLMAO!

Your arguments don't work.
It's not an argument, it's a fact.
Show me where it is a FACT. Otherwise, it is just YOUR OPINION. And
YOUR ARGUMENT.

They're too far out of date.
Good thing is, you don't get to decide.
Neither do you.

But in this case the op is a troll well-known in a.w.w. He just morphed
names, and it took a little while to catch on (good catch, Karl!).
SO? What does that have to do with comp.lang.php?
I didn't start it.
So you're so controlled you simply MUST post to comp.lang.php. Got
it. You're owned, bigtime.
I have the right to defend myself - especially against charges of
criminal activity. Period. You don't like it? Ignore the thread if
you don't like it.

I'm just trying to show people who Rafael
Martinez-Minuesa Martinez really is
You're doing just fine at showing he's the holder of your leash. Now
sit like a good little poodle.
ROFLMAO! You're even more stoopid than most people if you believe that.

And if I called you a fraud and a liar, will you just ignore it? I
think not. What would your employer do if he/she found out?

- a troll and a spammer.
SPAM is BI>20. His post was off topic, sure. But not spam. If you're
saying off topic is spam then your posts to comp.lang.php (and
comp.infosystems.www..... are spam too). Difference being: YOU can
lose your account for it faster than he can. Wanna see?
Wrong, Gary. And has been for years. You are woefully out of date.

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.

And neither do you, trolling fraud.

Ah yes, everyone's a troll and fraud for pointing out what a hypocrite
you are.

But the newsgroup regulars do.

No, actually, in an alt.* group, they don't.

And the majority of them have classified your posts as SPAM.

Doesn't matter at all. Don't like it? Too bad.

Sorry, troll.

Everyone that knows what you are is a troll. Neat!
--
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 Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:00:21 -0500, Jerry Stuckle

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.

And your posts are on topic? ROFLMAO! Pot-Kettle-Black.

How's that ignoring me thing going, stukkie? OOPS, did you LIE again?

Oh, you mean the one who can't even keep a website running? ROFLMAO!

Hahahahaha. DataBasix isn't a WEBSITE, dumbass.

A lot more than just one website, troll.

Bring it on, stuckkie. You know you want to.

Sorry, troll. No lies.

Liar.


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

 

[Baho Utot]

Psst. You're ignoring me, remember?

He always does "ignore" folks

Jerry thinks he owns aww.

I left that group because of him and the others just like him. Was not
worth the grief.

Some folks in aww are knowledgeable there but jerry and his ilk pollutes the
group beyond belief.

Just watch him attack me again now that I have posted this

 

[Gary L. Burnore]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 06 Jan 2008 13:40:11
GMT Chaddy2222 scribed:


Face it, Chaddy, this thread doesn't have any "best" parts. What tickles
me, though, are the spam accusations. In the general sense, the whole
thread is spam.

No, in general the entire thread is off charter for comp groups and
off topic in the alt groups. NOT spam.

Spam is well defined and has been for years. Jerry and a few dipshits
want to redefine spam. If they could succeed (they can't) they'd make
USENet unreadable as real spam would be free to pass.

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

 

[Baho Utot]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 06 Jan 2008 13:40:11
GMT Chaddy2222 scribed:


Face it, Chaddy, this thread doesn't have any "best" parts. What tickles
me, though, are the spam accusations. In the general sense, the whole
thread is spam.

I second that

 

[Jerry Stuckle]

Psst. You're ignoring me, remember?

Yep, you're an ignorant troll.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
(e-mail address removed)
==================