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.