🚀 go-pugleaf

Dave Korn wrote:
> 
> edward ohare wrote in message <3c4d5733.439290@news.alt.net>...
> >On Mon, 21 Jan 2002 22:44:08 -0500, Kate <anonyme@meow.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Yes. I don't think the peeps who cancel things consider content, but
> >>who knows.
> >
> >
> >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.
> 
> >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'

That's news to me.

Have you been listening to Kate again?


> >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.
> 
>          DaveK
> --
> moderator of
> alt.talk.rec.soc.biz.news.comp.humanities.meow.misc.moderated.meow
> Burn your ID card!  http://www.optional-identity.org.uk/
> Help support the campaign, copy this into your .sig!
> Proud Member of the Exclusive "I have been plonked by Davee because he
> thinks I'm interesting" List
> Member #<insert number here>