FA: Boxed Snooper SD815is Radar & Laser Detector - 10 Hours to go

"Douglas Payne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> However, so many people munge their email addresses to the point they are
> near indecipherable these days however that I didnt even think to try
yours.
> Plus I felt like a good old public moan.
>
So he was right, you ARE a tosser then

"lex" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Douglas Payne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > However, so many people munge their email addresses to the point they
are
> > near indecipherable these days however that I didnt even think to try
> yours.
> > Plus I felt like a good old public moan.
> >
> So he was right, you ARE a tosser then

I never disputed that. <grin>

Douglas

Bollocks you sad git



"Hirsty's" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> now now ladies, this is a family site
>
>
>
> "JC" <johncalias-newsgroupsATyahooD0TcoD0Tuk> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 11:56:37 +0000 (UTC), "Doug" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Well you've convinced me that you'ld be a good guy to do business
with -
> or
> > >not.....
> > >
> >
> > Good saves me the bother of having to tell you to stick your bid up your
> > arse!
> > --
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > John [Essex, UK]
> > Remove the obvious spamtrap to reply
>
>

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:24:07 GMT, "Hirsty's" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Bollocks you sad git
>

Might I suggest that you direct your rage at the correct respondent!
--

Regards

John [Essex, UK]
Remove the obvious spamtrap to reply

Apologies I was in a rush


"JC" <johncalias-newsgroupsATyahooD0TcoD0Tuk> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:24:07 GMT, "Hirsty's" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Bollocks you sad git
> >
>
> Might I suggest that you direct your rage at the correct respondent!
> --
>
> Regards
>
> John [Essex, UK]
> Remove the obvious spamtrap to reply

"Hirsty's" <[email protected]> wrote in news:UY1Sc.1107$FA4.1031
@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net:

> Apologies I was in a rush
>

On one more like

MrBitsy.

"MrBitsy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Hirsty's" <[email protected]> wrote in news:UY1Sc.1107$FA4.1031
> @newsfe4-gui.ntli.net:
>
> > Apologies I was in a rush
> >
>
> On one more like
>
> MrBitsy.


Oi ! I might be old but I ain't senile yet, now where did I put my good
set.

Apparently on date Mon, 09 Aug 2004 19:44:09 +0100, JC
<johncalias-newsgroupsATyahooD0TcoD0Tuk> said:

>On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 19:07:56 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>Er... no... he's right...
>>
>>You're spamming. Learn and move on.
>
>Er no, he's wrong..and so are you.
>
>He stated that this was a non-adverts group..and this is the crux of his
>argument.
>
>Well, believe it or not, I did look at the group before I posted here and
>found these ads posted in the last 2 weeks.
>
>FS: 101 Ambulance (Mildands area UK)

Ok, you say we're all wrong about this. Let's review the charters in each of
the three groups:

http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.driving.html
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.cars.misc.html
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.cars.4x4.html

It is clear that your advert breaches all three charters, albeit in different
ways.

I could, if I was a petty-minded usenet cop, report each of the three messages
from each of these newsgroups for a total of nine, clearly defined, charter
breaches. I'm not and frankly ignored the first post and also the second.

Third time around, your spamming to drum up trade to your own online auction,
was beginning to get irritating. Someone else pointed this out. Instead of
shutting up, you attempted to defend your actions by suggesting:

>Curiously you're the only **** to object as well...says a *whole* lot
>more about you than it does about me!

Now that more people are saying "stop spamming", you're changing your defence
on the basis of "everyone else does it" and "I didn't know it wasn't allowed",
and even "if you had said, I wouldn't have..."

Well it wasn't irritating until it was getting repetitive.

>A simple mail after my first post and I would have ceased posting ...but
>no...he has to start hurling names around...his mistake!!

You'll get that on usenet. Lucky nobody wanted to flame you, eh?

Now learn you got it wrong and move on to something more useful.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:06:47 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>Ok, you say we're all wrong about this. Let's review the charters in each of
>the three groups:
>
>http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.driving.html
>http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.cars.misc.html
>http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.rec.cars.4x4.html
>
I wondered how to find these...as did the OP...Thanks for showing me!

>It is clear that your advert breaches all three charters, albeit in different
>ways.

OK, I'll accept that..though 2 could be regarded as technicalities.
>
>I could, if I was a petty-minded usenet cop, report each of the three messages
>from each of these newsgroups for a total of nine, <snipped>

Out of interest..who would you report me to? Someone tried Ebay and I
received an apology from them today for sending me a warning mail, because
their anti-spam t&cs only cover email...not usenet.. Not trying to be
arsey...just curious.

>Now that more people are saying "stop spamming", you're changing your defence
>on the basis of "everyone else does it" and "I didn't know it wasn't allowed",
>and even "if you had said, I wouldn't have..."
>
>Well it wasn't irritating until it was getting repetitive.

Point taken, though my points are still valid. Not knowing where to view a
charter, the only guidance I had as to whether groups accepted ads was to
look at the current message history and associated responses...none of
which indicated a banned -ads group...indeed it appeared as though ads were
accepted.

>>A simple mail after my first post and I would have ceased posting ...but
>>no...he has to start hurling names around...his mistake!!
>
>You'll get that on usenet. Lucky nobody wanted to flame you, eh?
>
>Now learn you got it wrong and move on to something more useful.

Fair cop...I'll now look out for your similar postings to all of the other
adverts in the mentioned groups with baited breath.

--

Regards

John [Essex, UK]
Remove the obvious spamtrap to reply

Apparently on date Wed, 11 Aug 2004 19:37:27 +0100, JC
<johncalias-newsgroupsATyahooD0TcoD0Tuk> said:

>On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 14:06:47 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>I could, if I was a petty-minded usenet cop, report each of the three messages
>>from each of these newsgroups for a total of nine, <snipped>
>
>Out of interest..who would you report me to? Someone tried Ebay and I

The correct place is clara.net as I understand it, based on the X header.

In reality, though, it's considerably more unpleasant to NetKop than it is to
post adverts in a non-advert group, and it ought to be a last resort even when
justified.

JC <johncalias-newsgroupsATyahooD0TcoD0Tuk> wrote on Wed, 11 Aug 2004 19:37:27 +0100:
>>
>>I could, if I was a petty-minded usenet cop, report each of the three messages
>>from each of these newsgroups for a total of nine, <snipped>
>
> Out of interest..who would you report me to? Someone tried Ebay and I
> received an apology from them today for sending me a warning mail, because
> their anti-spam t&cs only cover email...not usenet.. Not trying to be
> arsey...just curious.

Hmm. That's disappointing. But the main group to complain to would be
your ISP, who would hopefully have a clause in their T&C or AUP making
spamming a breach of your contract, allowing them to take action against
you.

What would probably happen, in decreasing order of probability is:

1. Nothing.
2. You'd get a meaningless warning or a copy of the complaint
3. You'd actually get a written warning, stored on your account.
4. You'd actually be suspended/banned.

>
> Fair cop...I'll now look out for your similar postings to all of the other
> adverts in the mentioned groups with baited breath.

Well, if you're wanting him to be fair, note that he should only reply
after someone breaks the rules blatantly three times.

--
David Taylor
[email protected]
"The future just ain't what it used to be."