We have received an e-mail from someone who identifies himself as
Viper with Subject:
"Please delete this spammers account"
in reference to our Post named:
"Chinese and Japanese Partners at 1001webs.net "

We would like to kindly ask Viper to please explain in which way our
message can be considered as SPAM.

Thank You.

1001 Webs <1001webs@gmail.com> wrote in message:
1193237768.760584.320640@k35g2000prh.googlegroups. com,

> We have received an e-mail from someone who identifies himself as
> Viper with Subject:
> "Please delete this spammers account"
> in reference to our Post named:
> "Chinese and Japanese Partners at 1001webs.net "
>
> We would like to kindly ask Viper to please explain in which way our
> message can be considered as SPAM.
>
> Thank You.

I'm sure you'll find Viper's answer (if he gives one) to be somewhat
less than satisfying, so allow me to take a stab at answering your
question.

The purpose of this newsgroup is to exchange information about
webmastering, but it is not intended to be a vehicle for soliciting
business or business partners. The group's FAQ does not mention spam
because that is a loaded word for a lot of people that causes a lot of
arguments. Instead, the FAQ refers to unsolicited advertising.

http://www.aww-faq.org
"Ads are not welcome in AWW, whether on-topic or not. In fact, they are
so unwelcome that they are usually reported to the poster's ISP and web
host, etc. by some newsgroup members who really don't like ads. Read the
Advertising in AWW section for a definition of what we consider
unsolicited commercial advertising and likely to get you reported, and
what types of web site promotion are considered appropriate. If all you
want to do is post ads, then go to alt.www.webmaster.ads (AWWA) or some
other newsgroup that has a more ad-tolerant attitude. Please read the
FAQ for AWWA at http://awwa.aww-faq.org/ before you post an ad there."

And further down, under "Advertising in AWW"

"Unsolicited commercial messages of any kind are prohibited, and will
probably be reported to the sender's ISP and web host etc. by one or
more of AWW's regular participants. "Commercial" is defined in The
American Heritage® Dictionary as "Having profit as a chief aim" and
that's an excellent way to define the type of messages we don't want.
You cannot promote your web site, offer to "sell" anything, exchange
links, form partnerships, etc."


--
Red

Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
> 1001 Webs <1001webs@gmail.com> wrote in message:
> 1193237768.760584.320640@k35g2000prh.googlegroups. com,
>
>> We have received an e-mail from someone who identifies himself as
>> Viper with Subject:
>> "Please delete this spammers account"
>> in reference to our Post named:
>> "Chinese and Japanese Partners at 1001webs.net "
>>
>> We would like to kindly ask Viper to please explain in which way our
>> message can be considered as SPAM.
>>
>> Thank You.
>
> I'm sure you'll find Viper's answer (if he gives one) to be somewhat
> less than satisfying, so allow me to take a stab at answering your
> question.

That said, how professional -- using Google Gropes to make this request.
I doubt that they're going to be able to understand *any* explanation,
including your dead-on one, below.

> The purpose of this newsgroup is to exchange information about
> webmastering, but it is not intended to be a vehicle for soliciting
> business or business partners. The group's FAQ does not mention spam
> because that is a loaded word for a lot of people that causes a lot of
> arguments. Instead, the FAQ refers to unsolicited advertising.
>
> http://www.aww-faq.org
> "Ads are not welcome in AWW, whether on-topic or not. In fact, they are
> so unwelcome that they are usually reported to the poster's ISP and web
> host, etc. by some newsgroup members who really don't like ads. Read the
> Advertising in AWW section for a definition of what we consider
> unsolicited commercial advertising and likely to get you reported, and
> what types of web site promotion are considered appropriate. If all you
> want to do is post ads, then go to alt.www.webmaster.ads (AWWA) or some
> other newsgroup that has a more ad-tolerant attitude. Please read the
> FAQ for AWWA at http://awwa.aww-faq.org/ before you post an ad there."
>
> And further down, under "Advertising in AWW"
>
> "Unsolicited commercial messages of any kind are prohibited, and will
> probably be reported to the sender's ISP and web host etc. by one or
> more of AWW's regular participants. "Commercial" is defined in The
> American Heritage® Dictionary as "Having profit as a chief aim" and
> that's an excellent way to define the type of messages we don't want.
> You cannot promote your web site, offer to "sell" anything, exchange
> links, form partnerships, etc."


--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org

Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote in message:
slrnfhvepu.5l6.no.spam@thurston.blinkynet.net,

> Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
>> 1001 Webs <1001webs@gmail.com> wrote in message:
>> 1193237768.760584.320640@k35g2000prh.googlegroups. com,
>>
>>> We have received an e-mail from someone who identifies himself as
>>> Viper with Subject:
>>> "Please delete this spammers account"
>>> in reference to our Post named:
>>> "Chinese and Japanese Partners at 1001webs.net "
>>>
>>> We would like to kindly ask Viper to please explain in which way our
>>> message can be considered as SPAM.
>>>
>>> Thank You.
>>
>> I'm sure you'll find Viper's answer (if he gives one) to be somewhat
>> less than satisfying, so allow me to take a stab at answering your
>> question.
>
> That said, how professional -- using Google Gropes to make this
> request. I doubt that they're going to be able to understand *any*
> explanation, including your dead-on one, below.

Perhaps you're right. And I suspect that regardless they are probably
more interested in using any response they get as another opportunity to
post their url.

--
Red

Red E. Kilowatt wrote:

> Perhaps you're right. And I suspect that regardless they are probably
> more interested in using any response they get as another opportunity to
> post their url.
>

Which all of you reposted, apart from Red. Well done

--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com

SpaceGirl wrote:
> Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you're right. And I suspect that regardless they are probably
>> more interested in using any response they get as another
>> opportunity to post their url.
>>
>
> Which all of you reposted, apart from Red. Well done

lol

On 24 Oct 2007 13:09:09 -0700, 1001 Webs <1001webs@gmail.com> wrote:

>We have received an e-mail from someone who identifies himself as
>Viper with Subject:
>"Please delete this spammers account"
>in reference to our Post named:
>"Chinese and Japanese Partners at 1001webs.net "
>
>We would like to kindly ask Viper to please explain in which way our
>message can be considered as SPAM.
>
>Thank You.

Viper, aka snakepiss, is a long-term whiny loser. Add him to your
ignore list and you'll find it quieter. Likewise Red E Kilowatt, who
only wants to allow advertising by him and his pals. Red refers to a
'FAQ' which prohibits advertising, but fails to point out that his FAQ
is utterly worthless on several counts, not least of which that he's
an obsessive nutter who writes deranged FAQ's for giggles - take
http://kook.us as a classic example. Then theres the fact that as this
is an alt hierarchy newsgroup, it doesn't have a FAQ. Or even that
when this worthless FAQ was written, the majority of the group voted
to NOT have it in an independent ballot.

On 2007-10-24, Doug Baiter <doug-baiter@no.where> wrote:

> Viper, aka snakepiss, is a long-term whiny loser. Add him to your
> ignore list and you'll find it quieter. Likewise Red E Kilowatt, who
> only wants to allow advertising by him and his pals.

Riiiight.

This from some wingnut who comes out of the woodwoork every so often just
to taunt a few of the regulars?

Sure, you're pretty credible in my eyes


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com

SoCal Fire news at the Los Angeles Times Breaking News Blog:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/breakingnews/

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:43:13 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

>On 2007-10-24, Doug Baiter <doug-baiter@no.where> wrote:
>
>> Viper, aka snakepiss, is a long-term whiny loser. Add him to your
>> ignore list and you'll find it quieter. Likewise Red E Kilowatt, who
>> only wants to allow advertising by him and his pals.
>
>Riiiight.
>
>This from some wingnut who comes out of the woodwoork every so often just
>to taunt a few of the regulars?
>
What *is* this crap about 'regulars'? Have you *all* been tainted with
this mantra that somehow whatever is said by the people you're
referring to as 'regs' is somehow of more import than someone who
posts only occasionally?
Your definition is worthless. I've been posting here non-stop for
more than seven years, yet I'm happy to be a 'wingnut'. Theres posters
who've only been here a relatively short time who have input of value.
So lets dispense with this 'regs' junk, shall we? As for "attacking
the regs", I wont bother arguing my case since you've apparently
already made up your mind. I, on the other hand, prefer a more
*independent" version of history, which is why - unlike those who
oppose me - I'm happy to refer anyone to Google's groups history )

Steve Sobol wrote:
> On 2007-10-24, Doug Baiter <doug-baiter@no.where> wrote:
>
>> Viper, aka snakepiss, is a long-term whiny loser. Add him to your
>> ignore list and you'll find it quieter. Likewise Red E Kilowatt, who
>> only wants to allow advertising by him and his pals.
>
> Riiiight.
>
> This from some wingnut who comes out of the woodwoork every so often just
> to taunt a few of the regulars?
>
> Sure, you're pretty credible in my eyes
>
>

Forget it, Steve. He's just a troll.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Doug Baiter wrote:
> Viper, aka snakepiss, is a long-term whiny loser. Add him to your
> ignore list and you'll find it quieter. Likewise Red E Kilowatt, who
> only wants to allow advertising by him and his pals. Red refers to a
> 'FAQ' which prohibits advertising, but fails to point out that his FAQ
> is utterly worthless on several counts, not least of which that he's
> an obsessive nutter who writes deranged FAQ's for giggles - take
> http://kook.us as a classic example. Then theres the fact that as this
> is an alt hierarchy newsgroup, it doesn't have a FAQ. Or even that
> when this worthless FAQ was written, the majority of the group voted
> to NOT have it in an independent ballot.

You keep telling the spammers and n00bs that and Ill keep getting their
accounts nuked.

On 2007-10-24, Doug Baiter <doug-baiter@no.where> wrote:

> What *is* this crap about 'regulars'? Have you *all* been tainted with
> this mantra that somehow whatever is said by the people you're
> referring to as 'regs' is somehow of more import than someone who
> posts only occasionally?

More important? No. Not at all. More believable? Yes.

> Your definition is worthless. I've been posting here non-stop for
> more than seven years

Bullshit.

I've been reading for the past couple years and not seen much of anything
from you at all. You certainly haven't been posting here non-stop. I'll buy
that you've been around for seven years, but not that you are a regular
contributor.

> *independent" version of history, which is why - unlike those who
> oppose me - I'm happy to refer anyone to Google's groups history )

*shrug* I personally don't have a problem with that.


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com

SoCal Fire news at the Los Angeles Times Breaking News Blog:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/breakingnews/

On 2007-10-25, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:

> Forget it, Steve. He's just a troll.

Yeah, but he's more intelligent than Viper. I started ignoring Snakey due to
stupidity (his, not mine). At least Doug is somewhat capable of holding a
rational conversation.


--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com

SoCal Fire news at the Los Angeles Times Breaking News Blog:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/breakingnews/

Doug Baiter <doug-baiter@no.where> wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:43:13 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
><sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
>
>>On 2007-10-24, Doug Baiter <doug-baiter@no.where> wrote:
>>
>>> Viper, aka snakepiss, is a long-term whiny loser. Add him to your
>>> ignore list and you'll find it quieter. Likewise Red E Kilowatt, who
>>> only wants to allow advertising by him and his pals.
>>
>>Riiiight.
>>
>>This from some wingnut who comes out of the woodwoork every so often just
>>to taunt a few of the regulars?
>>
>What *is* this crap about 'regulars'? Have you *all* been tainted with
>this mantra that somehow whatever is said by the people you're
>referring to as 'regs' is somehow of more import than someone who
>posts only occasionally?

Not all, Mike. Not all.

Most of the sensible regulars, who have neither interest in California
forest fires, inappropriate tittle-tattle nor senseless flame wars
have stopped using the group and moved on.

It amazes me that the abuse of Usenet is "okay" and yet a single
commercial, but on topic post, generates hysterical screams for the
poster's accounts to be terminated. But then again, when one looks at
where the hysteria originates, it's not so surprising.

X

On 24 Oct, 21:09, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Please delete this spammers account"
> in reference to our Post named:
> "Chinese and Japanese Partners at 1001webs.net "

>> Viper, aka snakepiss, is a long-term whiny loser.

However in this case, he's quite right. Your postings are
unsolicited, irrelevant, against-charter pure-and-simple-spam.

How do you justify you dating site spam as in any way _not_ being spam?

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 05:46:51 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

>On 2007-10-24, Doug Baiter <doug-baiter@no.where> wrote:
>
>> What *is* this crap about 'regulars'? Have you *all* been tainted with
>> this mantra that somehow whatever is said by the people you're
>> referring to as 'regs' is somehow of more import than someone who
>> posts only occasionally?
>
>More important? No. Not at all. More believable? Yes.
>
>> Your definition is worthless. I've been posting here non-stop for
>> more than seven years
>
>Bullshit.
>
>I've been reading for the past couple years and not seen much of anything
>from you at all. You certainly haven't been posting here non-stop. I'll buy
>that you've been around for seven years, but not that you are a regular
>contributor.
>
Well, perhaps 'regular' is stretching it a little. At a guess I'd be
posting maybe 10 a month during that time, excluding 'nullified' and
this new temp username.

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 05:48:10 +0000 (UTC), Steve Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

>On 2007-10-25, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Forget it, Steve. He's just a troll.
>
>Yeah, but he's more intelligent than Viper. I started ignoring Snakey due to
>stupidity (his, not mine). At least Doug is somewhat capable of holding a
>rational conversation.

Jerry, like Red, would prefer it immensely if you would not respond to
any posts from me - they're both on record as imagining it somehow
'empowers' or 'rewards' me, and they think that if only there was a
*blanket* policy of ignoring me, perhaps I might go away. Its not
worked previously, but they live in hope )
At least I've moved up the evolutionary ladder a few steps in Jerrys
eyes - I've now graduated to 'troll' from 'spammer'!

On 25 Oct, 10:09, Andy Dingley <ding...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> How do you justify you dating site spam as in any way _not_ being spam?

My most sincere apologies! I'd mis-read your subject line and killed
the post as dating-site spam before I'd read the content.

It's a relevant post to the newsgroup. You didn't spam on the basis of
volume either (AFAICS) so there's no reason to regard it as spam.
Viper has a hair-trigger and regards _anything_ as spam, even if it's
useful to the community as a whole. I think he'd only be happy if
there was nothing posted except his own ego.


I would suggest in all modesty though, that a bit more editing in your
future subject lines might make them less ambiguous and prone to mis-
interpretation 8-)


Once again, my apologies for reacting too hastily.

Andy Dingley wrote:
> On 25 Oct, 10:09, Andy Dingley <ding...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
>> How do you justify you dating site spam as in any way _not_ being spam?
>
> My most sincere apologies! I'd mis-read your subject line and killed
> the post as dating-site spam before I'd read the content.
>
> It's a relevant post to the newsgroup. You didn't spam on the basis of
> volume either (AFAICS) so there's no reason to regard it as spam.
> Viper has a hair-trigger and regards _anything_ as spam, even if it's
> useful to the community as a whole. I think he'd only be happy if
> there was nothing posted except his own ego.
>
>
> I would suggest in all modesty though, that a bit more editing in your
> future subject lines might make them less ambiguous and prone to mis-
> interpretation 8-)
>
>
> Once again, my apologies for reacting too hastily.
>
>

Naw, you were right in the first place, Andy. It was spam.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Andy Dingley wrote:
> It's a relevant post to the newsgroup. You didn't spam on the basis of
> volume either (AFAICS) so there's no reason to regard it as spam.
> Viper has a hair-trigger and regards _anything_ as spam, even if it's
> useful to the community as a whole. I think he'd only be happy if
> there was nothing posted except his own ego.
>
Do a Google search on his domain name. He has spammed a few dozen places.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

> Naw, you were right in the first place, Andy. It was spam.

Spam for his affiliate link for some lame host noone has heard of before.

On 24 Oct 2007 Steve Sobol wrote in alt.www.webmaster

> I started ignoring Snakey due to
> stupidity (his, not mine).

Yah right.

--
D?
Yorkshire Pete
http://yorkshirepete.com/

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:30:18 -0400, "Viper" <venomx@gmail.com> wrote:

>Andy Dingley wrote:
>> It's a relevant post to the newsgroup. You didn't spam on the basis of
>> volume either (AFAICS) so there's no reason to regard it as spam.
>> Viper has a hair-trigger and regards _anything_ as spam, even if it's
>> useful to the community as a whole. I think he'd only be happy if
>> there was nothing posted except his own ego.
>>
>Do a Google search on his domain name. He has spammed a few dozen places.
>
I humbly suggest that a better use of time could be to Google *your*
name instead, which would potentially inform the reader of your
obsession with (what you see as) spam, and even a potential
explanation of why you reserve most venom for 'affiliate spam' - i.e.
its something you've had trouble with in the past yourself with your
doomed PPC campaigns )
Someone said back in 2001 that your 'cure' was worse than the
'disease'. Nothings changed...

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:39:10 -0400, "Viper" <venomx@gmail.com> wrote:

>Doug Baiter wrote:
>> Viper, aka snakepiss, is a long-term whiny loser. Add him to your
>> ignore list and you'll find it quieter. Likewise Red E Kilowatt, who
>> only wants to allow advertising by him and his pals. Red refers to a
>> 'FAQ' which prohibits advertising, but fails to point out that his FAQ
>> is utterly worthless on several counts, not least of which that he's
>> an obsessive nutter who writes deranged FAQ's for giggles - take
>> http://kook.us as a classic example. Then theres the fact that as this
>> is an alt hierarchy newsgroup, it doesn't have a FAQ. Or even that
>> when this worthless FAQ was written, the majority of the group voted
>> to NOT have it in an independent ballot.
>
>You keep telling the spammers and n00bs that and Ill keep getting their
>accounts nuked.
>
The only thing you've ever succeeded in nuking is your own, and by
extension this entire groups, credibility. You must know by now that
the vast majority of providers who've been unfortunate enough to have
you complain have decided you're nothing more than a spamkop wannabe,
and treat your complaints accordingly, so we're forced to wonder what
on Earth you intend to achieve with your insistence that you keep
getting accounts 'nuked'.

Andy Dingley scribed:

>On 24 Oct, 21:09, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Please delete this spammers account"
>> in reference to our Post named:
>> "Chinese and Japanese Partners at 1001webs.net "
>
>>> Viper, aka snakepiss, is a long-term whiny loser.
>
>However in this case, he's quite right. Your postings are
>unsolicited, irrelevant, against-charter pure-and-simple-spam.
>
Not trying to be a contrarian here, but there is absolutely nothing in the
charter for this group that speaks to advertisements or spam. You're
confusing the FAQ, a truly worthless document insofar as enforcing policy in
the Group is concerned, with the Charter for the Group.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)