From: rphenry@home.com 
  
 "Rob Kelk"  wrote in message 
 news:3b16k09poanpl34em5d0okh2c1emen3tgi@4ax.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?) 
  
 I am trying to say that both instances of 
  
 "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." 
  
 are appropriate for the postings in which they were located. 
  
 Just because someone has developed an automatic spam-detector or index that 
 identifies a posting or series of postings as spam does not necessarily make 
 it so. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)