Dear All,

Be a fan of Amul Icecream :- http://www.facebook.com/icecream.amul

In article
>,
Amul Icecream > wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Be a fan of Amul Icecream

Yeah, kinda no. I'm not a fan of spammers.

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

Miche > writes:

> In article
> >,
> Amul Icecream > wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Be a fan of Amul Icecream
>
> Yeah, kinda no. I'm not a fan of spammers.
>
> Miche

Dont reply to spam. Your reply is worse than the original post. No one
gives a shit who YOU think is spamming. But what you DO do by replying
is reopen the thread for those of us with properly working filters. This
then makes YOU an accomplice in the spamming.

Andy > writes:

> Bogbrush > wrote:
>
>> Miche > writes:
>>
>>> In article
>>> >,
>>> Amul Icecream > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> Be a fan of Amul Icecream
>>>
>>> Yeah, kinda no. I'm not a fan of spammers.
>>>
>>> Miche
>>
>> Dont reply to spam. Your reply is worse than the original post. No one
>> gives a shit who YOU think is spamming. But what you DO do by replying
>> is reopen the thread for those of us with properly working filters.
> This
>> then makes YOU an accomplice in the spamming.
>
> Geez...
>
> You're incapable of killing posts by subject title??
>
> Move your desk to the back of the classroom and face the wall! And put
> this dunce cap on!
>
> Andy

You totally miss the point.

The POINT is that certain people or addresses or sources are known
spammers. They get blacklisted and properly configured news readers can
ignore them. The petty net nazi replies "Look at me aren't I big and
clever" are NOT from known spammers and therefore become visible and
make the thread visible.

Hard for you to understand I know - but not even I can kill a subject I
don't even see in the first place.

Consider that lesson as for free

In article >, says...

> > Dont reply to spam. Your reply is worse than the original post. No one
> > gives a shit who YOU think is spamming. But what you DO do by replying
> > is reopen the thread for those of us with properly working filters.
> This
> > then makes YOU an accomplice in the spamming.
>
>
> Geez...
>
> You're incapable of killing posts by subject title??
>
> Move your desk to the back of the classroom and face the wall! And put
> this dunce cap on!
>
> Andy

<snerk> Net cops!

Scotty

--
Can I haz Cheezeburger?

Andy > writes:

> Bogbrush > wrote:
>
>> You totally miss the point.
>>
>> The POINT is that certain people or addresses or sources are known
>> spammers. They get blacklisted and properly configured news readers can
>> ignore them. The petty net nazi replies "Look at me aren't I big and
>> clever" are NOT from known spammers and therefore become visible and
>> make the thread visible.
>>
>> Hard for you to understand I know - but not even I can kill a subject I
>> don't even see in the first place.
>>
>> Consider that lesson as for free
>
> You have a point there but your hair conceals it!
>
> Andy

Pretty funny! Nice one

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:52:36 +0100, Bogbrush >
wrote:

>Miche > writes:
>
>> In article
>> >,
>> Amul Icecream > wrote:
>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> Be a fan of Amul Icecream
>>
>> Yeah, kinda no. I'm not a fan of spammers.
>>
>> Miche
>
>Dont reply to spam. Your reply is worse than the original post. No one
>gives a shit who YOU think is spamming. But what you DO do by replying
>is reopen the thread for those of us with properly working filters. This
>then makes YOU an accomplice in the spamming.

Or you could become a fan and write nasty shit on their wall.

Lou

On 2/23/2010 11:52 PM, Bogbrush wrote:
> > writes:
>
>> In article
>> >,
>> Amul > wrote:
>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> Be a fan of Amul Icecream
>>
>> Yeah, kinda no. I'm not a fan of spammers.
>>
>> Miche
>
> Dont reply to spam. Your reply is worse than the original post. No one
> gives a shit who YOU think is spamming. But what you DO do by replying
> is reopen the thread for those of us with properly working filters. This
> then makes YOU an accomplice in the spamming.
>

If I'm counting right, you're the biggest spammer-accomplice on this
thread. Ironic, ain't it? :-)

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:26:20 -0600, Andy wrote:

> Bogbrush > wrote:
>
>> You totally miss the point.
>>
>> The POINT is that certain people or addresses or sources are known
>> spammers. They get blacklisted and properly configured news readers can
>> ignore them. The petty net nazi replies "Look at me aren't I big and
>> clever" are NOT from known spammers and therefore become visible and
>> make the thread visible.
>>
>> Hard for you to understand I know - but not even I can kill a subject I
>> don't even see in the first place.
>>
>> Consider that lesson as for free
>
> You have a point there but your hair conceals it!
>
> Andy

andy, you're such a card.

blake

On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:40:56 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:52:36 +0100, Bogbrush >
> wrote:
>
>>Miche > writes:
>>
>>> In article
>>> >,
>>> Amul Icecream > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>>
>>>> Be a fan of Amul Icecream
>>>
>>> Yeah, kinda no. I'm not a fan of spammers.
>>>
>>> Miche
>>
>>Dont reply to spam. Your reply is worse than the original post. No one
>>gives a shit who YOU think is spamming. But what you DO do by replying
>>is reopen the thread for those of us with properly working filters. This
>>then makes YOU an accomplice in the spamming.
>
> Or you could become a fan and write nasty shit on their wall.
>
> Lou

but be subtle. talk about how delicious it is and mention that you're sure
the explosive diarrhea that followed was completely unrelated.

your pal,
blake