Amazing camera store

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by lorisdsa@gmail.com, Feb 7, 2007.

  1. Guest

    , Feb 7, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Paul Heslop Guest

    Paul Heslop, Feb 7, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Roy G Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > This website www.xxxxxxxxxxx has high quality items at low, low
    > prices. FREE shipping too. Cameras,SD cards, tripods and other
    > wonderful stuff.


    BUT the owner is a Spammer, and therefore disreputable.

    Roy G
    Roy G, Feb 7, 2007
    #3
  4. dwight Guest

    "Roy G" <> wrote in message
    news:nThyh.5018$...
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> This website www.xxxxxxxxxxx has high quality items at low, low
    >> prices. FREE shipping too. Cameras,SD cards, tripods and other
    >> wonderful stuff.

    >
    > BUT the owner is a Spammer, and therefore disreputable.
    >
    > Roy G


    Not spam. Posted to a public newsgroup AND on topic.

    Spam is what I get in my inbox. Instant weight loss (I'm thin), cures for
    baldness (full head of hair), Valentine's Day offers galore (hmmmm....), and
    the constant harrassment over the size of my winkie.

    dwight
    dwight, Feb 7, 2007
    #4
  5. Spam THis Guest

    dwight wrote:
    > "Roy G" <> wrote in message
    > news:nThyh.5018$...
    >> <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> This website www.xxxxxxxxxxx has high quality items at low, low
    >>> prices. FREE shipping too. Cameras,SD cards, tripods and other
    >>> wonderful stuff.

    >> BUT the owner is a Spammer, and therefore disreputable.
    >>
    >> Roy G

    >
    > Not spam. Posted to a public newsgroup AND on topic.
    >
    > Spam is what I get in my inbox. Instant weight loss (I'm thin), cures for
    > baldness (full head of hair), Valentine's Day offers galore (hmmmm....), and
    > the constant harrassment over the size of my winkie.
    >
    > dwight
    >
    >

    It's off-charter, commercial ad, therefore can be considered spam.
    Spam THis, Feb 7, 2007
    #5
  6. J. Clarke Guest

    On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 06:42:33 -0500, "dwight" <>
    wrote:

    >"Roy G" <> wrote in message
    >news:nThyh.5018$...
    >>
    >> <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> This website www.xxxxxxxxxxx has high quality items at low, low
    >>> prices. FREE shipping too. Cameras,SD cards, tripods and other
    >>> wonderful stuff.

    >>
    >> BUT the owner is a Spammer, and therefore disreputable.
    >>
    >> Roy G

    >
    >Not spam. Posted to a public newsgroup AND on topic.
    >
    >Spam is what I get in my inbox. Instant weight loss (I'm thin), cures for
    >baldness (full head of hair), Valentine's Day offers galore (hmmmm....), and
    >the constant harrassment over the size of my winkie.


    It's amazing the rationalizations that spammers and junk mailers come
    up with to justify their crap.

    Personally I'm getting to the point that I'm thinking that all
    advertising in any form should be taxed and any that can't be
    reasonably taxed should be banned outright.

    They could pay off the national debt on AOL alone.
    J. Clarke, Feb 7, 2007
    #6
  7. Paul Heslop Guest

    dwight wrote:
    >
    > "Roy G" <> wrote in message
    > news:nThyh.5018$...
    > >
    > > <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> This website www.xxxxxxxxxxx has high quality items at low, low
    > >> prices. FREE shipping too. Cameras,SD cards, tripods and other
    > >> wonderful stuff.

    > >
    > > BUT the owner is a Spammer, and therefore disreputable.
    > >
    > > Roy G

    >
    > Not spam. Posted to a public newsgroup AND on topic.
    >
    > Spam is what I get in my inbox. Instant weight loss (I'm thin), cures for
    > baldness (full head of hair), Valentine's Day offers galore (hmmmm....), and
    > the constant harrassment over the size of my winkie.
    >
    > dwight


    it's spam
    --
    Paul (Need a lift she said much obliged)
    -------------------------------------------------------
    Stop and Look
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
    Paul Heslop, Feb 7, 2007
    #7
  8. AZ Nomad Guest

    On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:01:52 GMT, Paul Heslop <> wrote:


    >dwight wrote:
    >>
    >> "Roy G" <> wrote in message
    >> news:nThyh.5018$...
    >> >
    >> > <> wrote in message
    >> > news:...
    >> >> This website www.xxxxxxxxxxx has high quality items at low, low
    >> >> prices. FREE shipping too. Cameras,SD cards, tripods and other
    >> >> wonderful stuff.
    >> >
    >> > BUT the owner is a Spammer, and therefore disreputable.
    >> >
    >> > Roy G

    >>
    >> Not spam. Posted to a public newsgroup AND on topic.
    >>
    >> Spam is what I get in my inbox. Instant weight loss (I'm thin), cures for
    >> baldness (full head of hair), Valentine's Day offers galore (hmmmm....), and
    >> the constant harrassment over the size of my winkie.
    >>
    >> dwight


    >it's spam


    agreed. any advertising in rec.photo.digital is in violation of its
    charter. Pretending to be an average reader to say how great a company is when
    you are the owner of the company and don't mention that little fun-fact is
    borderline fraud, typical of a spammer.
    AZ Nomad, Feb 7, 2007
    #8
  9. Paul Heslop Guest

    AZ Nomad wrote:
    >
    > On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:01:52 GMT, Paul Heslop <> wrote:
    >
    > >dwight wrote:
    > >>
    > >> "Roy G" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:nThyh.5018$...
    > >> >
    > >> > <> wrote in message
    > >> > news:...
    > >> >> This website www.xxxxxxxxxxx has high quality items at low, low
    > >> >> prices. FREE shipping too. Cameras,SD cards, tripods and other
    > >> >> wonderful stuff.
    > >> >
    > >> > BUT the owner is a Spammer, and therefore disreputable.
    > >> >
    > >> > Roy G
    > >>
    > >> Not spam. Posted to a public newsgroup AND on topic.
    > >>
    > >> Spam is what I get in my inbox. Instant weight loss (I'm thin), cures for
    > >> baldness (full head of hair), Valentine's Day offers galore (hmmmm....), and
    > >> the constant harrassment over the size of my winkie.
    > >>
    > >> dwight

    >
    > >it's spam

    >
    > agreed. any advertising in rec.photo.digital is in violation of its
    > charter. Pretending to be an average reader to say how great a company is when
    > you are the owner of the company and don't mention that little fun-fact is
    > borderline fraud, typical of a spammer.


    and we seem to be seeing more of it
    --
    Paul (Need a lift she said much obliged)
    -------------------------------------------------------
    Stop and Look
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
    Paul Heslop, Feb 7, 2007
    #9
  10. Ken Lucke Guest

    In article <>,
    AZ Nomad <> wrote:

    > On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:01:52 GMT, Paul Heslop <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    > >dwight wrote:
    > >>
    > >> "Roy G" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:nThyh.5018$...
    > >> >
    > >> > <> wrote in message
    > >> > news:...
    > >> >> This website www.xxxxxxxxxxx has high quality items at low, low
    > >> >> prices. FREE shipping too. Cameras,SD cards, tripods and other
    > >> >> wonderful stuff.
    > >> >
    > >> > BUT the owner is a Spammer, and therefore disreputable.
    > >> >
    > >> > Roy G
    > >>
    > >> Not spam. Posted to a public newsgroup AND on topic.
    > >>
    > >> Spam is what I get in my inbox. Instant weight loss (I'm thin), cures for
    > >> baldness (full head of hair), Valentine's Day offers galore (hmmmm....),
    > >> and
    > >> the constant harrassment over the size of my winkie.
    > >>
    > >> dwight

    >
    > >it's spam

    >


    No, actually, despite opinions to the contrary, it isn't. Actually,
    the definition of spam [on Usenet, as defined by the systems
    administrators themselves] is "posting a substantively similar article
    in excess of a Briedbart Index of 20 in a 45 day period."
    [c.f. [<http://www.killfile.org/faqs/spam.html>,
    <http://www.stopspam.org/faqs/thresholds.html>, et. al]

    This is the clinical definition of spam, as defined by those system
    administrators. Spam is not defined by whether it's advertising,
    whether it's on topic, or who is posting it or why. The definition of
    spam is absolutely content-neutral. An on-topic post, following all
    newsgroup guidelines & charters, posted in excess of a BI of 20, would
    still be spam.

    Off-topic, charter violations, annoying, etc., are just that, but they
    are not necessarily /spam/. Usenet spam is not just something you
    don't like or doesn't belong somewhere, but rather a mathematically
    definied principle based upon the number of times something is said,
    not what is said or where.

    > agreed. any advertising in rec.photo.digital is in violation of its
    > charter.


    It WAS in violation of the charter, annoying, and deceitful [The
    standard "golly, look at this neat website I found" bullshit], but it
    wasn't actually spam, because it wasn't posted enough times to reach
    the BI threshold of 20 in a 45 day period.

    > Pretending to be an average reader to say how great a company is when
    > you are the owner of the company and don't mention that little fun-fact is
    > borderline fraud, typical of a spammer.


    All the above doesn't mean I don't agree with the distaste for the
    article, just setting the record straight as to whether or not it was
    actually spam. It wasn't.

    Doesn't mean I don't agree that spammers don't lie - I do... "Know how
    to tell when a spammer is lying?.... Their keyboard is clicking."

    Doesn't mean I don't hate spammerrs with a passion - I do. I used to
    spend a major portion of my days cleaning up after them on usenet.

    Just clarifying with an actual definition that is accepted worldwide by
    virtually every systems administrator - you know, the ones who actually
    /own/ and /run/ the machines all this happens on. :^)

    --
    You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
    reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
    the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
    independence.
    -- Charles A. Beard
    Ken Lucke, Feb 7, 2007
    #10
  11. ASAAR Guest

    On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 10:25:43 -0800, Ken Lucke wrote:

    > All the above doesn't mean I don't agree with the distaste for the
    > article, just setting the record straight as to whether or not it was
    > actually spam. It wasn't.


    It doesn't match the original definition, which I agree is still
    the number one, numero uno, mostest, bestest definition. But
    languages evolve, and if enough people consider occasional junk ads
    to be spam, so be it. It is then also spam. Maybe not for you, but
    then language evolution has passed you by and doesn't really care
    about your objections. I'm sure that you're aware that the
    dictionary is full of words that not only have many definitions,
    some of them are the exact opposite of others. If you can come up
    with a catchy, memorable term for this "non-spam", others may be
    willing to use it, and maybe this alternate use of "spam" will fade.


    > Just clarifying with an actual definition that is accepted worldwide by
    > virtually every systems administrator - you know, the ones who actually
    > /own/ and /run/ the machines all this happens on. :^)


    Far more people are familiar with Monty Python than with real live
    systems administrators, so they may view spam differently. <g>
    ASAAR, Feb 7, 2007
    #11
  12. Nervous Nick Guest

    On Feb 7, 12:50 pm, ASAAR <> wrote:

    > Far more people are familiar with Monty Python than with real live
    > systems administrators, so they may view spam differently. <g>


    Thank you!

    --
    YOP...
    Nervous Nick, Feb 7, 2007
    #12
  13. Ken Lucke Guest

    In article <>,
    Nervous Nick <> wrote:

    > On Feb 7, 12:50 pm, ASAAR <> wrote:
    >
    > > Far more people are familiar with Monty Python than with real live
    > > systems administrators, so they may view spam differently. <g>

    >
    > Thank you!
    >


    Uhm, that WAS the point of the whole reference to the MP skit, and the
    use of the term "spam" to describe the electronic equivalent to the
    Vikings in that skit - the same thing, too many times, drowning out
    normal conversation. Or don't you know why the term was borrowed?

    --
    You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
    reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
    the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
    independence.
    -- Charles A. Beard
    Ken Lucke, Feb 7, 2007
    #13
  14. dwight Guest

    "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 10:25:43 -0800, Ken Lucke wrote:
    >
    >> All the above doesn't mean I don't agree with the distaste for the
    >> article, just setting the record straight as to whether or not it was
    >> actually spam. It wasn't.

    >
    > It doesn't match the original definition, which I agree is still
    > the number one, numero uno, mostest, bestest definition. But
    > languages evolve, and if enough people consider occasional junk ads
    > to be spam, so be it. It is then also spam. Maybe not for you, but
    > then language evolution has passed you by and doesn't really care
    > about your objections. I'm sure that you're aware that the
    > dictionary is full of words that not only have many definitions,
    > some of them are the exact opposite of others. If you can come up
    > with a catchy, memorable term for this "non-spam", others may be
    > willing to use it, and maybe this alternate use of "spam" will fade.


    "Spam", like "troll", is straying far from its true meaning. Evolution of
    language doesn't make it right. Hell, I'm still wondering when we all
    decided to change the rules in using "capitol" v. "capital".

    I was just pointing out that the original post was not spam. Call it
    unwelcome advertising and rip the poster a new one (that's your right), but
    it was, at least, on topic. Hell, if I had a product to push, I'd sure tell
    the people who read the relevant newsgroups... Of course, I'd try to do it
    in a more informative, less clichéd fashion.

    dwight
    dwight, Feb 8, 2007
    #14
  15. No no no Dwight. No a days anything someone doesn't like online is called
    spam. While originally spam meant un-asked for e-mail today it means
    unwanted text messages and phone calls and faxes and posts to a public board
    or newsgroup like this, telemarketer calls, junk mail in the mail box (snail
    mail here), unwanted online chat in a chatroom, you name it and it is spam.
    Hell I am spamming myself right now just touching my computer mouse.

    So just remember if a few don't like something, even if it is in public and
    not addressed to them directly and even if it is posted in the appropriate
    topic area and deals with the topic in question it is spam. Even if other
    people find it useful. For example the posts by Paul Heslop and Roy G are
    spam. I don't want to see the posts. It doesn't matter that this is
    basically a public bulletin board. Hell there posts were more off topic and
    spam like than the message they were bitching about like two little school
    girls.

    ljc


    "dwight" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Roy G" <> wrote in message
    > news:nThyh.5018$...
    >>
    >> <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> This website www.xxxxxxxxxxx has high quality items at low, low
    >>> prices. FREE shipping too. Cameras,SD cards, tripods and other
    >>> wonderful stuff.

    >>
    >> BUT the owner is a Spammer, and therefore disreputable.
    >>
    >> Roy G

    >
    > Not spam. Posted to a public newsgroup AND on topic.
    >
    > Spam is what I get in my inbox. Instant weight loss (I'm thin), cures for
    > baldness (full head of hair), Valentine's Day offers galore (hmmmm....),
    > and the constant harrassment over the size of my winkie.
    >
    > dwight
    >
    >
    Little Juice Coupe, Feb 8, 2007
    #15
  16. And, where and when exactly did I or anyone else get shown this charter and
    was made aware of it and then signed anything or agreed to be bound by that
    charter? Never happened. There is nothing legal to enforce such a charter
    unless one is shown and reads the charter and agrees to it. I would also
    like information on the dick wadd that dreamed up the charter. Maybe
    he/she/it has some mental problems.

    ljc


    "Spam THis" <dev/null> wrote in message
    news:45c9caec$0$30761$...
    > dwight wrote:
    >> "Roy G" <> wrote in message
    >> news:nThyh.5018$...
    >>> <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> This website www.xxxxxxxxxxx has high quality items at low, low
    >>>> prices. FREE shipping too. Cameras,SD cards, tripods and other
    >>>> wonderful stuff.
    >>> BUT the owner is a Spammer, and therefore disreputable.
    >>>
    >>> Roy G

    >>
    >> Not spam. Posted to a public newsgroup AND on topic.
    >>
    >> Spam is what I get in my inbox. Instant weight loss (I'm thin), cures for
    >> baldness (full head of hair), Valentine's Day offers galore (hmmmm....),
    >> and the constant harrassment over the size of my winkie.
    >>
    >> dwight
    >>
    >>

    > It's off-charter, commercial ad, therefore can be considered spam.
    >
    Little Juice Coupe, Feb 8, 2007
    #16
  17. Or even if the other people making using of the public newsgroup likes the
    post or not. Just because 5 assholes don't like it doesn't make it spam.

    ljc


    "Ken Lucke" <> wrote in message
    news:070220071025437497%...
    > In article <>,
    > AZ Nomad <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:01:52 GMT, Paul Heslop
    >> <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> >dwight wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> "Roy G" <> wrote in message
    >> >> news:nThyh.5018$...
    >> >> >
    >> >> > <> wrote in message
    >> >> > news:...
    >> >> >> This website www.xxxxxxxxxxx has high quality items at low, low
    >> >> >> prices. FREE shipping too. Cameras,SD cards, tripods and other
    >> >> >> wonderful stuff.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > BUT the owner is a Spammer, and therefore disreputable.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Roy G
    >> >>
    >> >> Not spam. Posted to a public newsgroup AND on topic.
    >> >>
    >> >> Spam is what I get in my inbox. Instant weight loss (I'm thin), cures
    >> >> for
    >> >> baldness (full head of hair), Valentine's Day offers galore
    >> >> (hmmmm....),
    >> >> and
    >> >> the constant harrassment over the size of my winkie.
    >> >>
    >> >> dwight

    >>
    >> >it's spam

    >>

    >
    > No, actually, despite opinions to the contrary, it isn't. Actually,
    > the definition of spam [on Usenet, as defined by the systems
    > administrators themselves] is "posting a substantively similar article
    > in excess of a Briedbart Index of 20 in a 45 day period."
    > [c.f. [<http://www.killfile.org/faqs/spam.html>,
    > <http://www.stopspam.org/faqs/thresholds.html>, et. al]
    >
    > This is the clinical definition of spam, as defined by those system
    > administrators. Spam is not defined by whether it's advertising,
    > whether it's on topic, or who is posting it or why. The definition of
    > spam is absolutely content-neutral. An on-topic post, following all
    > newsgroup guidelines & charters, posted in excess of a BI of 20, would
    > still be spam.
    >
    > Off-topic, charter violations, annoying, etc., are just that, but they
    > are not necessarily /spam/. Usenet spam is not just something you
    > don't like or doesn't belong somewhere, but rather a mathematically
    > definied principle based upon the number of times something is said,
    > not what is said or where.
    >
    >> agreed. any advertising in rec.photo.digital is in violation of its
    >> charter.

    >
    > It WAS in violation of the charter, annoying, and deceitful [The
    > standard "golly, look at this neat website I found" bullshit], but it
    > wasn't actually spam, because it wasn't posted enough times to reach
    > the BI threshold of 20 in a 45 day period.
    >
    >> Pretending to be an average reader to say how great a company is when
    >> you are the owner of the company and don't mention that little fun-fact
    >> is
    >> borderline fraud, typical of a spammer.

    >
    > All the above doesn't mean I don't agree with the distaste for the
    > article, just setting the record straight as to whether or not it was
    > actually spam. It wasn't.
    >
    > Doesn't mean I don't agree that spammers don't lie - I do... "Know how
    > to tell when a spammer is lying?.... Their keyboard is clicking."
    >
    > Doesn't mean I don't hate spammerrs with a passion - I do. I used to
    > spend a major portion of my days cleaning up after them on usenet.
    >
    > Just clarifying with an actual definition that is accepted worldwide by
    > virtually every systems administrator - you know, the ones who actually
    > /own/ and /run/ the machines all this happens on. :^)
    >
    > --
    > You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
    > reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
    > the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
    > independence.
    > -- Charles A. Beard
    Little Juice Coupe, Feb 8, 2007
    #17
  18. ASAAR Guest

    On Wed, 7 Feb 2007 22:21:46 -0500, dwight wrote:

    > "Spam", like "troll", is straying far from its true meaning. Evolution of
    > language doesn't make it right. Hell, I'm still wondering when we all
    > decided to change the rules in using "capitol" v. "capital".
    >
    > I was just pointing out that the original post was not spam. Call it
    > unwelcome advertising and rip the poster a new one (that's your right), but
    > it was, at least, on topic. Hell, if I had a product to push, I'd sure tell
    > the people who read the relevant newsgroups... Of course, I'd try to do it
    > in a more informative, less clichéd fashion.


    And while I agreed with you about the most preferable definition
    of spam, *I* was just pointing out that no one on this planet
    (outside of France) can force words to have a single "true"
    definition. If this weren't the case, everyone would probably still
    be speaking the one, true, ancient tongue.
    ASAAR, Feb 8, 2007
    #18
  19. Mike Fields Guest

    "dwight" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Roy G" <> wrote in message
    > news:nThyh.5018$...
    >>
    >> <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> This website www.xxxxxxxxxxx has high quality items at low, low
    >>> prices. FREE shipping too. Cameras,SD cards, tripods and other
    >>> wonderful stuff.

    >>
    >> BUT the owner is a Spammer, and therefore disreputable.
    >>
    >> Roy G

    >
    > Not spam. Posted to a public newsgroup AND on topic.
    >
    > Spam is what I get in my inbox. Instant weight loss (I'm thin), cures
    > for baldness (full head of hair), Valentine's Day offers galore
    > (hmmmm....), and the constant harrassment over the size of my winkie.
    >
    > dwight
    >


    Well, if you didn't have such a dinky winkie, you wouldn't get harassed
    over
    it :)
    Mike Fields, Feb 8, 2007
    #19
  20. Little Juice Coupe wrote:
    > And, where and when exactly did I or anyone else get shown this charter and
    > was made aware of it and then signed anything or agreed to be bound by that
    > charter? Never happened. There is nothing legal to enforce

    blaah, blah, blaaaah.

    Why don't you concentrate on learning how to post properly?

    --

    lsmft
    John McWilliams, Feb 8, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Matti Haveri

    Sharpening digital camera images for photo-store printing

    Matti Haveri, Aug 26, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    704
    Mike Russell
    Aug 29, 2003
  2. Bill Hilton

    Camera store in Phoenix/Scottsdale?

    Bill Hilton, Dec 5, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    591
    bfriedman
    Dec 5, 2003
  3. Dan Sullivan

    Your local camera store!!!

    Dan Sullivan, Dec 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    53
    Views:
    1,268
    cwvalle
    Jan 26, 2004
  4. William Wallace

    Checking your 10D at the camera store before brining it home.

    William Wallace, Jan 6, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    46
    Views:
    870
    Randall Ainsworth
    Jan 13, 2004
  5. sms

    camera store in Seattle

    sms, Mar 4, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    5,685
    Bryce
    Mar 5, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page