From: jaSPAMc@gbr.online.com   
      
   On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 23:18:57 GMT, "Peter D"  found these unused   
   words floating about:   
      
   >"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.   
      
   Nice ... take five lines to paraphrase what I said in one ... must be an   
   'ejukater'.  Let me guess ... turd grade?   
      
   >> >#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.   
   >   
      
   But you're still 'replying' ... !    
      
   >> 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. :-)   
   >   
   Hey DON ... is "syour" the same as "you"?   
   "couldnt' "  ... "couldn't"   
   " hte" ... "the"   
      
      
      
   Quick definitions (actionable)   
      
   # adjective:   affording grounds for legal action (Example: "Slander is an   
   actionable offense")   
   Example: "Deliberately misleading advertising is an actionable offense."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)