Re: SPAM DB has been released

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 08:33:51 +0100, Sybrand Bakker <gooiditweg_at_sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 00:34:48 +0000, Andy Hassall <andy_at_andyh.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>> That would be the original message that was posted by Daniel Convissor, and
>>not Ed Avis as you have just claimed?
>
>I don't think Daniel ever claimed Ed Avis was the originator. Reading
>posts seems to have become a problem since 'Ron' arrived.

 Yes, he just did. Daniel wrote a couple of messages back:

"Ed Avis didn't even
take the time to read our Charter before posting his message that I, and I believe Sybrand too, have clearly labelled as unadulterated spam."

 Ed didn't post the message labelled as spam. His first post in the thread even contained quotes from the charters.

 Then when asked:

"Could you please remind us which of Ed's messages was "labelled as spam"?  Or are you misattributing (again)?"

 Daniel replied:

"The original message promoted going to a for-profit commercial web site and downloading a "free" product. And I will not repeat the company or product name."

 Again, Ed didn't post the original message.

>Reading posts seems to have become a problem since 'Ron' arrived.

 Apparently.

-- 
Andy Hassall <andy_at_andyh.co.uk> / Space: disk usage analysis tool
<http://www.andyh.co.uk> / <http://www.andyhsoftware.co.uk/space>