From: robkelk@deadspam.com 
  
 On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 00:18:26 -0700, "Richard Henry"  
 wrote: 
  
 > 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. 
  
  
  
 >>        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. 
  
 You said that already.  If you post it 18 more times in the next 40-some 
 days, its BI will make it cancellable spam, no matter what any of us 
 believe. 
  
 More importantly, simply repeating a statement over and over doesn't add 
 anything to a discussion.  It's more productive to add more information 
 to subsequent statements. 
  
 (BTW, it's possible to read in to what you're saying that it's 
 acceptable to follow up spam with spam.  Is that what you mean to say?) 
  
 -- 
 Rob Kelk 
 Personal address (ROT-13): eboxryx -ng- wxfei -qbg- pbz 
 Any opinions here are mine, not ONAG's. 
 ott.* newsgroup charters:  
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)