🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:20:11 -0000, "Dave Korn"
<no.spam@my.mailbox.invalid> wrote:

>edward ohare wrote in message <3c4d5733.439290@news.alt.net>...

>>Uhhh.... yes, content is part of what they consider because the
>>message must convey substantially the same message.  Now, and I'm
>>laughing at this, a hipspew of irrelevant unrealated words strung
>>together, each post substantially different in the words used, _does_
>>convey substantially the same message, which is _there is no message_!
>>Its all meaningless, in any sense of the definition of meaningless.
>
>  heh, yeh, I agree with that definition of why hashbuster is actually all
>the same.  in fact I'm willing to declare any post that is statistically
>identical to noise as being noise.


There ya go!  Its noise, pure and simple.


>>Unless I missed it, CC hasn't said cascades were spam.  Others have
>>said cascades were spam.
>
>  he is apparently concerned that his users should cross-poast
>"responsibly".
>
>  and i am informed that he has a problem with some kind of apparently
>unholy devil-spawned accursed creation known as 'snuh'


Yea, well last Fall, I asked Kate to explain snuh to me, and she
instead said to take a look.  I did, and its still didn't make any
sense.

So fill me in if you're willing.


>>I have a high degree of confidence that whether or not a specific
>>cascade qualifies as spam under the concensus definition would have
>>any effect on CC's views.
>
>  i can't parse that even if I assume there's a missing 'not' in there.

Yea, I messed that one up.

There's another post here that clarifies it.