From: rphenry@home.com 
  
  wrote in message 
 news:chtjc6$kh6$2@tribune.usask.ca... 
 > Richard Henry  wrote: 
 > 
 > >"Arthur L. Rubin"  wrote in message 
 > >news:4141B06A.6EE9@sprintmail.com... 
 > >> Kathy Cole wrote: 
 > >> 
 > >> > Gentlemen, it really isn't necessary to followup each post to 
 identify 
 > >> > the perps.  It's obvious they're trolls, and the repeated identical 
 text 
 > >> > is spam. 
 > >> 
 > >> Agreed.  Repeated idential text is one of the types of spam. 
 > 
 > >Disagreed. 
 > 
 > >If one is making comments about the nature or content of significant 
 > >postings, and the nature or content of those postings is sufficiently 
 > >similar, then the comments may become identical. 
 > 
 > It still ends up being labelled as spam.  If such comments occur 
 > at a frequency similar to spam (say, if we use BI), then they aren't 
 > worth making, they aren't adding anything to the discussion and 
 > are adding to bandwidth unnecessarily.  It may well be called 
 > spam simply because it fits all the qualities of spam (unless 
 > you argue that spam must be commercial, which I don't agree with). 
 > If I post one of my RFD critiques 50 times in one week, what have 
 > I accomplished with numbers 2 to 50?  Nothing good.  I would flood 
 > the RFD thread and annoy folks who have to keep stepping through 
 > the thread until they find something different than the stupidly 
 > repeating critique.  I will have ensured that as many news.groups 
 > readers (including proponent, supporters, and opposition) as possible 
 > saw my critique, which is exactly what spamming is intended to do. 
 > I would be just as unhappy if 49 people quoted my critique in its 
 > entirety followed by just an "I agree" simply because the critique 
 > is not seeking consensus and such postings are a waste of bandwidth 
 > that ought to be used for discussing the points made or missing in 
 > the critique.  If a morphing troll or a gang of trolls did just 
 > that, then it would probably be labelled as spam.  The kind of 
 > content isn't a criterion for spam, the major criterion is 
 > repetition. 
  
 Disagreed. 
  
 If one is making comments about the nature or content of significant 
 postings, and the nature or content of those postings is sufficiently 
 similar, then the comments may become identical. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)