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