🚀 go-pugleaf

"Kate" <anonyme@meow.org> sometime earlier, before I regained consciousness
from yet another drug induced coma, wrote in message:
news:e3tj4us2mmofkta2ftm308i918ea2ctj4k@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 20:22:50 GMT edward_ohare@yahoo.com (edward ohare)
> from altnet.general wrote:
> >On Sat, 19 Jan 2002 11:32:12 -0500, Kate <anonyme@meow.org> wrote:
>
> >>>>There are a multitude of problems with the formula used to calculate
> >>>>BI counts.
> >>
> >>>Such as?
> >>
> >>For one thing: content of the posts is not even considered.
> >
> >Uh..... content _is_ considered.  Subtantially the same thing, over
> >and over, is what makes it spam.
>
> No, content certainly isn't a factor in the BI equation, which is the
> 'definitive' description of spam.


   NANAU added. Feel free then to start third party cancelling posts based on
the BI w/o regard to content. I and I'm sure some of the NANAU crowd will be
happy to see your account toasted. Learn what the BI is.


> >>Crossposters who post a lot are not spammers.
> >
> >Crossposters who post a lot and post substantially the same thing over
> >and over are spammers.
>
> The term "substantially" is subjective. If there is a new comment
> added, and it makes sense to include the other replies, then, no, it
> is not spam. It's not spam at any rate.


   This could only be spam if you were quoting spam that was over a BI of 20.
--
http://www.dextromethorphan.cc. My "Beginner's Guide to DXM"- Version 2.4,
and other DXM related material can be accessed from there.