From: please@.sk   
      
   "J. A. Mc."  wrote in message   
   news:6fgcj0tv71e7dttkm4pampd0gg5sp2sqqs@4ax.com...   
   > On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 16:43:17 GMT, "Peter D"  found these   
   unused   
   > words floating about:   
   >   
   > >#1: It isn't "spam". It is an advertisement for a stamp show, soemthing   
   that   
   > >falls well within what is normally acceptable in a STAMP newsgroup.  Yes,   
   > >yes, provided it doens't have a Charter that specifically prohibit such   
   > >advertisements.   
   >   
   > When the poster ID's it as "spam this" ... I'd vote for SPAM.   
      
   You vote how you want. Doesn't make any difference. "Spam" in newsgroups is   
   well-defined. Nothing in the definition has anything to do with the nym or   
   munged mail addy of the poster. It is the CONTENT of a message in the   
   SPECIFIC newsgroup that makes it spam or not. As you accept, below, that hte   
   content isn't spam, the message isn't spam. :-)   
      
   > The rest is true a plain ad for the show would have been ON topic.   
   >   
   > >#3: It was so obviously hype as to even get through to the most stupid   
   and   
   > >naive of readers. "Actionable"?   
   >   
   > Guess you haven't been up on eBay to see the dummies buying high priced   
   oots   
   > - or those on RCSD constantly asking how much the US 3¢ issue is 'worth'.   
      
   I filter for foolishness. You might try the same.   
      
   > Yes, it would be "actionable", as the persona of "spam this" is supposedly   
   > 'representing' the show. Look around at all the silly (to sane people) law   
   > suits, then think on it!   
      
   No matter how many time syour repeat it, it isn't "actionable". BTW, define   
   "actionable", will you? And then find us those two people and make your   
   case. It couldnt' be too hard. You appear to believe you know what you're   
   talking about. :-)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)