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.
