 |
|
| Sushi (alt.food.sushi) For talking sushi. (Sashimi, wasabi, miso soup, and other elements of the sushi experience are valid topics.) Sushi is a broad topic; discussions range from preparation to methods of eating to favorite kinds to good restaurants. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Healthy Food = A Longer Life
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Questions wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 08:01:46 -0800, > (Wholefood Farmacy) wrote: > > >> >>http://www.take.wholefoodfarmacy.com So why are you posting non-sushi related spam? -- Dan |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In ,
Questions > typed: > On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 12:41:06 -0500, Dan Logcher > > wrote: > >> Questions wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 08:01:46 -0800, xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> http://www.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> So why are you posting non-sushi related spam? > > Actually Dan, I was attempting to let others in the group know > that > the posting just above mine was SPAM, and didn't need to be > opened. > This is so obvious, I wonder why you would bother to ask. Are > you > baiting me or just being funny? I don't know what Dan had in mind, but let me point out that when you answer a spam message and repost the URL that the spammer posted, you are reposting and spreading the spam for him. If you must do this, at least obliterate the company name, URL, etc. -- Ken Blake Please reply to the newsgroup |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Questions wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 11:56:00 -0700, "Ken Blake" > > wrote: > > >>In , >>Questions > typed: >> >> >>>On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 12:41:06 -0500, Dan Logcher > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Questions wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 08:01:46 -0800, xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>http://www.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> >>>>So why are you posting non-sushi related spam? >>> >>>Actually Dan, I was attempting to let others in the group know >>>that >>>the posting just above mine was SPAM, and didn't need to be >>>opened. >>>This is so obvious, I wonder why you would bother to ask. Are >>>you >>>baiting me or just being funny? >> >> >>I don't know what Dan had in mind, but let me point out that when >>you answer a spam message and repost the URL that the spammer >>posted, you are reposting and spreading the spam for him. >> >>If you must do this, at least obliterate the company name, URL, >>etc. > > > So, his answer to me was also "reposting and spreading the spam", as > it also contained the URL that was posted by the spammer? > > Get real guys. I've been using the Internet since the days of UNIX > only. I know what I'm doing. In this case, I was warning of a spam > message and it makes no difference if the damn url was in it or not. > Stop with the nit-picking. I'm sure you are way too old for it. Big deal.. I've been using the Internet before UNIX, when it was called the ARPANET, and it was on PDP-10's and 11's (Tops-20). My point was that you continued the spam, and didn't add any warning except in the Subject. -- Dan |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 12:41:06 -0500, Dan Logcher
> wrote: >Questions wrote: > >> On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 08:01:46 -0800, >> (Wholefood Farmacy) wrote: >> >> >>> >>>http://www.take.wholefoodfarmacy.com > >So why are you posting non-sushi related spam? Actually Dan, I was attempting to let others in the group know that the posting just above mine was SPAM, and didn't need to be opened. This is so obvious, I wonder why you would bother to ask. Are you baiting me or just being funny? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Questions wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 14:08:38 -0500, Dan Logcher > > wrote: > > >>Questions wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 11:56:00 -0700, "Ken Blake" > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>In , >>>>Questions > typed: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 12:41:06 -0500, Dan Logcher > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Questions wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 08:01:46 -0800, xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>http://www.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>>>> >>>>>>So why are you posting non-sushi related spam? >>>>> >>>>>Actually Dan, I was attempting to let others in the group know >>>>>that >>>>>the posting just above mine was SPAM, and didn't need to be >>>>>opened. >>>>>This is so obvious, I wonder why you would bother to ask. Are >>>>>you >>>>>baiting me or just being funny? >>>> >>>> >>>>I don't know what Dan had in mind, but let me point out that when >>>>you answer a spam message and repost the URL that the spammer >>>>posted, you are reposting and spreading the spam for him. >>>> >>>>If you must do this, at least obliterate the company name, URL, >>>>etc. >>> >>> >>>So, his answer to me was also "reposting and spreading the spam", as >>>it also contained the URL that was posted by the spammer? >>> >>>Get real guys. I've been using the Internet since the days of UNIX >>>only. I know what I'm doing. In this case, I was warning of a spam >>>message and it makes no difference if the damn url was in it or not. >>>Stop with the nit-picking. I'm sure you are way too old for it. >> >>Big deal.. I've been using the Internet before UNIX, when it was called >>the ARPANET, and it was on PDP-10's and 11's (Tops-20). My point was that >>you continued the spam, and didn't add any warning except in the Subject. > > > As you did. Your point is invalid. You also have a real attitude. > Stick to Sushi wiseguy. I asked why you were posting spam.. cuz to me, it looks like your sending it along. you think I have an attitude? Heh, haven't been around some of the less friendly newsgroups then. Don't expect people to be so helpful if you can't take some constructive criticism. -- Dan |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Questions wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 16:11:14 -0500, Dan Logcher > > wrote: > > >>I asked why you were posting spam.. cuz to me, it looks like your >>sending it along. you think I have an attitude? Heh, haven't been >>around some of the less friendly newsgroups then. Don't expect people >>to be so helpful if you can't take some constructive criticism. > > > This group has been a very polite and helpful group. Your criticism > was not constructive, it was nothing but you venting. > > Let's just skip this entire problem and as I said, stick to sushi. > > I'll not mention anything to do with spam again on your group. > > I'm here to talk about sushi, not debate net etiquette. > > No harm was intended. you obviously perceive my question as an attack, which it was not. This isn't my newsgroup, it belongs to everyone interested in sushi. -- Dan |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 11:56:00 -0700, "Ken Blake"
> wrote: >In , >Questions > typed: > >> On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 12:41:06 -0500, Dan Logcher >> > wrote: >> >>> Questions wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 08:01:46 -0800, xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> >>> So why are you posting non-sushi related spam? >> >> Actually Dan, I was attempting to let others in the group know >> that >> the posting just above mine was SPAM, and didn't need to be >> opened. >> This is so obvious, I wonder why you would bother to ask. Are >> you >> baiting me or just being funny? > > >I don't know what Dan had in mind, but let me point out that when >you answer a spam message and repost the URL that the spammer >posted, you are reposting and spreading the spam for him. > >If you must do this, at least obliterate the company name, URL, >etc. So, his answer to me was also "reposting and spreading the spam", as it also contained the URL that was posted by the spammer? Get real guys. I've been using the Internet since the days of UNIX only. I know what I'm doing. In this case, I was warning of a spam message and it makes no difference if the damn url was in it or not. Stop with the nit-picking. I'm sure you are way too old for it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 11:56:00 -0700, "Ken Blake"
> wrote: >In , >Questions > typed: > >> On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 12:41:06 -0500, Dan Logcher >> > wrote: >> >>> Questions wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 08:01:46 -0800, xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> >>> So why are you posting non-sushi related spam? >> >> Actually Dan, I was attempting to let others in the group know >> that >> the posting just above mine was SPAM, and didn't need to be >> opened. >> This is so obvious, I wonder why you would bother to ask. Are >> you >> baiting me or just being funny? > > >I don't know what Dan had in mind, but let me point out that when >you answer a spam message and repost the URL that the spammer >posted, you are reposting and spreading the spam for him. > >If you must do this, at least obliterate the company name, URL, >etc. So, his answer to me was also "reposting and spreading the spam", as it also contained the URL that was posted by the spammer? Get real guys. I've been using the Internet since the days of UNIX only. I know what I'm doing. In this case, I was warning of a spam message and it makes no difference if the damn url was in it or not. Stop with the nit-picking. I'm sure you are way too old for it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 14:08:38 -0500, Dan Logcher
> wrote: >Questions wrote: >> On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 11:56:00 -0700, "Ken Blake" >> > wrote: >> >> >>>In , >>>Questions > typed: >>> >>> >>>>On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 12:41:06 -0500, Dan Logcher > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Questions wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 08:01:46 -0800, xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>http://www.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>>> >>>>>So why are you posting non-sushi related spam? >>>> >>>>Actually Dan, I was attempting to let others in the group know >>>>that >>>>the posting just above mine was SPAM, and didn't need to be >>>>opened. >>>>This is so obvious, I wonder why you would bother to ask. Are >>>>you >>>>baiting me or just being funny? >>> >>> >>>I don't know what Dan had in mind, but let me point out that when >>>you answer a spam message and repost the URL that the spammer >>>posted, you are reposting and spreading the spam for him. >>> >>>If you must do this, at least obliterate the company name, URL, >>>etc. >> >> >> So, his answer to me was also "reposting and spreading the spam", as >> it also contained the URL that was posted by the spammer? >> >> Get real guys. I've been using the Internet since the days of UNIX >> only. I know what I'm doing. In this case, I was warning of a spam >> message and it makes no difference if the damn url was in it or not. >> Stop with the nit-picking. I'm sure you are way too old for it. > >Big deal.. I've been using the Internet before UNIX, when it was called >the ARPANET, and it was on PDP-10's and 11's (Tops-20). My point was that >you continued the spam, and didn't add any warning except in the Subject. As you did. Your point is invalid. You also have a real attitude. Stick to Sushi wiseguy. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 16:11:14 -0500, Dan Logcher
> wrote: >I asked why you were posting spam.. cuz to me, it looks like your >sending it along. you think I have an attitude? Heh, haven't been >around some of the less friendly newsgroups then. Don't expect people >to be so helpful if you can't take some constructive criticism. This group has been a very polite and helpful group. Your criticism was not constructive, it was nothing but you venting. Let's just skip this entire problem and as I said, stick to sushi. I'll not mention anything to do with spam again on your group. I'm here to talk about sushi, not debate net etiquette. No harm was intended. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 21:41:28 -0500, shawn >
wrote: >Questions, > >Just so you know I had questions about why you posted this again, as I >see other did. I didn't notice that you changed the topic so I saw was >the repost of the previous message. I suspect most of the other people >didn't notice the new title as well. No harm, but at least you can see >why some people wondered why you were reposting the URL. This group has been a very polite and helpful group. Your criticism was not constructive, it was nothing but you venting. Let's just skip this entire problem and as I said, stick to sushi. I'll not mention anything to do with spam again on your group. I'm here to talk about sushi, not debate net etiquette. No harm was intended. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 16:03:28 -0500, shawn >
wrote: >Questions > wrote: > >>On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 21:41:28 -0500, shawn > >>wrote: >> >>>Questions, >>> >>>Just so you know I had questions about why you posted this again, as I >>>see other did. I didn't notice that you changed the topic so I saw was >>>the repost of the previous message. I suspect most of the other people >>>didn't notice the new title as well. No harm, but at least you can see >>>why some people wondered why you were reposting the URL. >> >>This group has been a very polite and helpful group. Your criticism >>was not constructive, it was nothing but you venting. > >The above is the only comment I've made on this subject. I think you >have me confused with someone else. If you see the above comments as >venting then so be it, but I'll respectfully disagree with your >opinion. Shawn, I'll make myself very clear. First, you say that you didn't notice the 14 CAPITALIZED letters at the FRONT of the subject line of my posting. You say that you "suspect" what other people might have noticed or not and then you again speak for "some people" in regards to the spam URL being within my warning post. You are not the spokesman for anyone. You speak for yourself. There was nothing to gain from your post other than to say your piece, i.e. venting. What I did is very common on Usenet. If you haven't seen it before, then you haven't seen much of Usenet. Your post was not respectful, it was just you venting an opinion that was unnecessary. Please just leave this subject alone. It's finished. It was finished prior to your post concerning it. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Healthy Food = A Longer Life | Mexican Cooking | |||
| Healthy Food = A Longer Life | Recipes | |||
| Healthy Food = A Longer Life | Baking | |||
| Healthy Food = A Longer Life | Tea | |||
| Healthy Food = A Longer Life | Vegan | |||
Linear Mode
