 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2010A Message for now and the future
We are the world, we are the children.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmxT21uFRwM&feature=related Even if you've seen this before, it's worth another look and listen. -- Maria Conlon > We are the world, we are the children.... > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmxT21uFRwM&feature=related > > Even if you've seen this before, it's worth another look and listen. Linkspam is never worth another look, Jan >> We are the world, we are the children.... >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Linkspam is never worth another look, ObAUE: I've never heard the term "linkspam" before. Does it apply to /all/ URLs, or just the ones that might lift a person's spirits? Wishing you lifted spirits,  SignatureMaria Conlon >>> We are the world, we are the children.... >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Wishing you lifted spirits, I'll lift a glass of spirits to that. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > >> We are the world, we are the children.... > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ObAUE: I've never heard the term "linkspam" before. It is quite new, a few years old at best, I think. > Does it apply to > /all/ URLs, or just the ones that might lift a person's spirits? The source that the URL links to is irrelevant for it being linkspam. What makes it linkspam is that it is just a bare URL dumped in a newsgroup, without explanation of what it is about and why it might be of interst to whom. Jan Fri, 25 Dec 2009 09:58:09 -0500 from Maria Conlon <conlonmaria@sbcglobal.net>: > >> We are the world, we are the children.... > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Wishing you lifted spirits, I would not call it spam, but I personally get frustrated by the posting of links to movies without an explanation of what is there. A link to a still picture isn't a big deal to me because I can always click it and see what's in it nearly immediately. But movies take longer, so it would be helpful to know in advance why I'm being asked to look at it. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... >>>> We are the world, we are the children.... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > longer, so it would be helpful to know in advance why I'm being asked > to look at it. You're right, of course. I should have described the YouTube video, but didn't even think of that. I just wanted to share it. However, Lodder's remark about "linkspam" was, I think, wrong-headed. I can't think of anything in YouTube that constitutes "spam": "noun: unwanted e-mail (usually of a commercial nature sent out in bulk)." Is that definition of "spam" wrong? Should the def now include any URL in a newsgroup message? But enough about this. Me, I'm just going to mellow out. (The Drambuie that Santa put under the Christmas Tree for me just may help. Not that it's necessary, you understand.) SignatureMaria Conlon Maria Conlon skrev: > However, Lodder's remark about "linkspam" was, I think, wrong-headed. I > can't think of anything in YouTube that constitutes "spam": "noun: > unwanted e-mail (usually of a commercial nature sent out in bulk)." > Is that definition of "spam" wrong? Yes. "Spam" means "a lot of the same unwanted thing" - many messages to one person or the same message to many persons. "Spam" has always been used about usenet messages as well as e-mail. Nigeria spam may be one message to one newsgroup. I wouldn't call your original posting spam, but I prefer an explanation along with a simple link. On my homepage I have a copy of a message once sent to a newsgroup. You must understand that this reference is in *no* way aimed at you, but I think the message is quite funny. http://bertel.lundhansen.dk/?page=spam/simplespam SignatureBertel, Denmark > Maria Conlon skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "Spam" has always been used about usenet messages as well as > e-mail. Note: By that definition, then everything posted in a newsgroup is spam: Each post is one (same) message sent to many persons. That is too broad a definition, IMO. > Nigeria spam may be one message to one newsgroup. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Nigeria spam," but I doubt that that term describes what I posted that JJ Lodder found objectionable. (I've received "Nigeria" email, of course. I've never replied to it.) > I wouldn't call your original posting spam, but I prefer an > explanation along with a simple link. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://bertel.lundhansen.dk/?page=spam/simplespam I didn't see any particular humor, but that's just me. Thought: Perhaps any URLs of any kind should be forbidden in this pristine group. Yes, I do understand that it's okay if someone decribes (preferably in full?) what will be encountered when clicking on the URL. Or am I wrong about that? Is a URL in itself annoying in any circumstance? You may not have "aimed" your post at me, but in fact, I feel aimed at. I've not seen this particular message (of yours) aimed at anyone else in AUE over the years, though there have been plenty of "bare" URLs posted for reasons of humor, information, or whatever. (Admittedly, I may have missed a former posting of your don't-spam post.) And, frankly, I generally /do/ provide descriptions when I post URLs. But "generally" is not "always," so it doesn't matter. I slipped. Bad me. Questions: Are URLs pointing to newspaper articles considered spam? What about Google Images? And is copying and posting an entire article (or a full explanation of what the URL reaches) preferable to you and others? In my mind, JJ Lodder's objection to my earlier post was not really about "spam" at all. But if my post was truly seen as "spam" by readers, then I apologize -- but fully expect the next URL-poster to be jumped on immediately if he or she does not provide at least some detail (or warning, if the "click" would produce something porn-ish or violent). Back to my Bah! Humbug! mood now, Maria Conlon [...] >In my mind, JJ Lodder's objection to my earlier post was not really >about "spam" at all. But if my post was truly seen as "spam" by readers, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Back to my Bah! Humbug! mood now, >Maria Conlon You can unknot your knickers, Tootsie. You didn't post any spam. > [...] >>In my mind, JJ Lodder's objection to my earlier post was not really [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You can unknot your knickers, Tootsie. You didn't post any spam. Thank you, Murray. I feel better now. <smile> Maria Conlon skrev: > Note: By that definition, then everything posted in a newsgroup is spam: > Each post is one (same) message sent to many persons. That is too broad > a definition, IMO. Don't forget "unwanted". > > Nigeria spam may be one message to one newsgroup. > I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Nigeria spam," but I doubt that > that term describes what I posted that JJ Lodder found objectionable. > (I've received "Nigeria" email, of course. I've never replied to it.) That is spam - and scam. > Thought: Perhaps any URLs of any kind should be forbidden in this > pristine group. Just to be sure: I didn't mind your posting at all. > Yes, I do understand that it's okay if someone decribes > (preferably in full?) what will be encountered when clicking on the URL. > Or am I wrong about that? Is a URL in itself annoying in any > circumstance? No. A short sentence or two describing what the poster finds interesting would be quite sufficient. Sometimes I feel the same way about someone posting a text quote and nothing else or maybe just an "Awful!" below. One doesn't always know what the poster found awful. > You may not have "aimed" your post at me, but in fact, I feel aimed at. > I've not seen this particular message (of yours) aimed at anyone else in > AUE over the years, though there have been plenty of "bare" URLs posted > for reasons of humor, information, or whatever. (Admittedly, I may have > missed a former posting of your don't-spam post.) I don't link to it any more. Usenet has become stable in my oppinion. Those who spam, will spam no matter what you do, and those who annoy others, will continue to do so no matter how many appeals they get. I only linked to the message because I find it funny, and the talk of spam made me think of it. The fun part is the fact that he managed to write his message with only one-syllable words (when spoken), and the fact that he wrote such an easily understandable message to some spammers. > Questions: Are URLs pointing to newspaper articles considered spam? Not by me. But as I wrote: A hint to what is interesting is often a good idea. SignatureBertel, Denmark Maria Conlon filted: >I >can't think of anything in YouTube that constitutes "spam": "noun: >unwanted e-mail (usually of a commercial nature sent out in bulk)." No spam on YouTube?...how about those popups that identify the music playing in the background of a clip and offering to sell you the song on iTunes?...r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Maria Conlon filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the background of a clip and offering to sell you the song on > iTunes?...r I haven't noticed/encountered them*, though pop-ups in general annoy me. I "x" them out or "close" them ASAP. I think pop-ups should be outlawed anywhere online. That's going to happen someday. Surely. (And pigs will fly.) *I don't go to YouTube all that often. SignatureMaria Conlon Maria Conlon skrev: > I haven't noticed/encountered them*, though pop-ups in general annoy me. > I "x" them out or "close" them ASAP. I think pop-ups should be outlawed > anywhere online. That's going to happen someday. Surely. (And pigs will > fly.) In Opera and Firefox you can set popups to never appear. In Opera you can even right-click, choose "Block out" and click on annoying adds. Finish with "Accept (or OK)" and the adds are removed from the page - permanently. SignatureBertel, Denmark Bertel Lund Hansen filted: >Maria Conlon skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >annoying adds. Finish with "Accept (or OK)" and the adds are >removed from the page - permanently. The YouTube ones I was referring to are incorporated into the video clips themselves...let's see if I can find an example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXd8n9x0VHU ObDescriptionOfLink: this is a three-minute video chronicling a motorcycle ride in some mountains north and east of Los Angeles...the creator of the video has added a musical track for background...about fifteen seconds in, a message appears, covering about a fifth of the image, identifying the music as "Hold On Tight" by Electric Light Orchestra from the album "Afterglow", and offering a clickable link to buy the song from iTunes or from AmazonMP3.... Does your popup-averse system prevent that message from appearing?...r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? R H Draney skrev: > Does your popup-averse system prevent that message from appearing?...r I don't know what prevents them from showing, but there are no popups or other strange messages or links. There is a short blink of a black screen after about 15 seconds, and later again once or twice. Opera 10.1 or Firefox 3.5 on XP. SignatureBertel, Denmark > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXd8n9x0VHU > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Does your popup-averse system prevent that message from appearing?...r Mine does. What you describe isn't in the raw video stream; it's being added by the Flash-based player. Since I don't allow Flash on my systems, I simply download the video using cclive and play it in proper video-playing software. SignatureRoger BW - BrE Roger Burton West skrev: > Mine does. What you describe isn't in the raw video stream; it's being > added by the Flash-based player. Since I don't allow Flash on my > systems, I simply download the video using cclive and play it in proper > video-playing software. I allow Flash on my system, and I just let Opera/Firefox handle the stream as they see fit. SignatureBertel, Denmark > Maria Conlon skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > annoying adds. Finish with "Accept (or OK)" and the adds are > removed from the page - permanently. In Firefox you can install Adblock Plus, which is very effective at suppressing most ads and it's free. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email > Maria Conlon skrev: >> I haven't noticed/encountered them*, though pop-ups in general annoy >> me. I "x" them out or "close" them ASAP. I think pop-ups should be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > annoying adds. Finish with "Accept (or OK)" and the adds are > removed from the page - permanently. I have not been able to get Firefox to stop presenting the pesky M-W Online pop-under. Google Chrome does not show it, though. SignatureSkitt (AmE) now using Google Chrome Skitt skrev: > I have not been able to get Firefox to stop presenting the pesky M-W Online > pop-under. Google Chrome does not show it, though. I gave the short explanation. There is an eternal struggle between popups and popup-blockers. Opera (my standard browser) can't prevent all of the popups either. And if I block some of them, necessary information disappears too. SignatureBertel, Denmark >> Maria Conlon skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >I have not been able to get Firefox to stop presenting the pesky M-W Online >pop-under. Google Chrome does not show it, though. You're using it, Skitt? Does Google claim it is simple to remove if a user wants to revert to Windows Explorer? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> Maria Conlon skrev: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >You're using it, Skitt? Does Google claim it is simple to remove if a >user wants to revert to Windows Explorer? I have no experience of Google Chrome, but I am sure that, like Firefox and Opera, it is just another application that can be used instead of MS Internet Explorer (IE) and/or at the same time as any other browser or browsers, including IE. It does not remove or replace IE. Clicking on the Google Chrome icon will start up Google Chrome, clicking on the IE icon will start up IE, and so on. <installs Google Chrome> OK, I now have Google Chrome, Firefox and IE running. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>> Maria Conlon skrev: >>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >OK, I now have Google Chrome, Firefox and IE running. Interesting, Peter. Thank you. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> Maria Conlon skrev: >>>> I haven't noticed/encountered them*, though pop-ups in general >>>> annoy me. I "x" them out or "close" them ASAP. I think pop-ups [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > You're using it, Skitt? Does Google claim it is simple to remove if a > user wants to revert to Windows Explorer? I see that Peter D. has answered your question. I agree with his answer. SignatureSkitt (in SF Bay Area) http://home.comcast.net/~skitt99/main.html >>>> Maria Conlon skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >I see that Peter D. has answered your question. I agree with his answer. ACK. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > I have not been able to get Firefox to stop presenting the pesky M-W Online > pop-under. I don't see any kind of pop-anything at M-W Online, using Firefox with Adblocker Plus. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> I have not been able to get Firefox to stop presenting the pesky M-W >> Online pop-under. > > I don't see any kind of pop-anything at M-W Online, using Firefox > with Adblocker Plus. I just updated my Firefox (to 3.5.6), added Adblock Plus (1.1.2), went to www.m-w.com, searched for a word, and got a pop-under, just like before. You can't see it until you get rid of whatever else is displayed on top of it. That does not happen with Google Chrome, but it does give a little message that one pop-up was blocked. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>> I have not been able to get Firefox to stop presenting the pesky M-W >>> Online pop-under. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > before. You can't see it until you get rid of whatever else is displayed > on top of it. Have you tried stopping and restarting Firefox? I.M.E. that is sometimes necessary after adding extras. > That does not happen with Google Chrome, but it does give a little > message that one pop-up was blocked. SignatureLes (BrE) > Skitt wrote: >>>> I have not been able to get Firefox to stop presenting the pesky >>>> M-W Online pop-under. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Have you tried stopping and restarting Firefox? I.M.E. that is > sometimes necessary after adding extras. Yes. SignatureSkitt (AmE) > >>>>> I have not been able to get Firefox to stop presenting the pesky [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Yes. Have you looked at Tools -> Adblock Plus Preferences -> Options to make sure Adblock Plus is enabled. FYI I have Firefox 3.5.1 running on Suse Linux, but I imagine it's similar. SignatureLes (BrE) > Skitt wrote: >>>>>> I have not been able to get Firefox to stop presenting the pesky >>>>>> M-W Online pop-under. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Have you looked at Tools -> Adblock Plus Preferences -> Options to > make sure Adblock Plus is enabled. Yes. > FYI I have Firefox 3.5.1 running on Suse Linux, but I imagine it's > similar. Probably. SignatureSkitt (AmE) [..] >> FYI I have Firefox 3.5.1 running on Suse Linux, but I imagine it's >> similar. > > Probably. Have you looked at Tools -> Adblock Plus Preferences -> Filters. I seem to have a default list of the types of thing that should be blocked. Do you have the same and is it enabled? SignatureLes (BrE) > Skitt wrote: > [..] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I seem to have a default list of the types of thing that should be > blocked. Do you have the same and is it enabled? OK, I think I have successfully added the proper filter. Thanks. SignatureSkitt (AmE) > >> I have not been able to get Firefox to stop presenting the pesky M-W > >> Online pop-under. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That does not happen with Google Chrome, but it does give a little message > that one pop-up was blocked. When I open M-W Online, Adblock Plus reports that it blocked 8 out of 37 items. I see no pop-up or -under. When do you see the pop-under? Does it appear immediately when the page opens, or do you have to do something to trigger it? SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >>>> I have not been able to get Firefox to stop presenting the pesky >>>> M-W Online pop-under. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > pop-under? Does it appear immediately when the page opens, or do you > have to do something to trigger it? When I first go to M-W Online, nothing untoward happens. Then, when I go to the definitions of a word, another small window containing an advertisement opens under the displayed window. I can see it also in the task bar. If I minimize the main window, the ad is displayed. My Adblock seems to indicate that it blocked 2 of 188 items. The address of the unblocked window does not appear in the list of blockable items. Its address starts with http://click.adstexpress.com/ . SignatureSkitt (AmE) >> When I open M-W Online, Adblock Plus reports that it blocked 8 out >> of 37 items. I see no pop-up or -under. When do you see the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > of the unblocked window does not appear in the list of blockable items. > Its address starts with http://click.adstexpress.com/ . I think I see your problem. To get the best out of Adblock Plus, you have to subscribe to a supplier of filters. (It's free.) Use Tools/Adblock Plus preferences, then Filters/Add filter subscription. EasyList should give you what you need. Whether you need any of the others depends on what sort of sites you visit. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > When I first go to M-W Online, nothing untoward happens. Then, when I go to > the definitions of a word, another small window containing an advertisement [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > not appear in the list of blockable items. Its address starts with > http://click.adstexpress.com/ . I don't see that in the list of blocked items either. Maybe it's being blocked for me by Firefox itself. I'm running version 3.5.5 for Mac. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> When I first go to M-W Online, nothing untoward happens. Then, when >> I go to the definitions of a word, another small window containing [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > being blocked for me by Firefox itself. I'm running version 3.5.5 > for Mac. I think I misinterpreted the address. Anyway, it is now all taken care of by adding the proper filter. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>> I have not been able to get Firefox to stop presenting the pesky >>> M-W Online pop-under. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That does not happen with Google Chrome, but it does give a little > message that one pop-up was blocked. The same happens with IE8. "Pop-up blocked. To see this pop-up or additional options, click here..." On the other hand, if I tell it that it's okay to display pop-ups, I don't actually see one. That seems to be IE8 itself, not the IE7Pro add-in I use as an ad blocker. If I turn off ad blocking, I still don't get one, although I do see four annyoing ads. Perhaps it only tries once. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If I am ever forced to make a 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |choice between learning and using Palo Alto, CA 94304 |win32, or leaving the computer |industry, let me just say it was kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |nice knowing all of you. :-) (650)857-7572 | Randal Schwartz http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> I have not been able to get Firefox to stop presenting the pesky M-W >>> Online pop-under. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > before. You can't see it until you get rid of whatever else is displayed > on top of it. I've just done the same (Firefox 3.5.4, Adblock Plus 1.1.2), and I can't find anything resembling a popup or popunder. What is it that you're supposed to get rid of to find out what's underneath? [Exploring some more]. Ah, perhaps you mean that feature where you can double-click on a displayed word to get a frame with the message "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary." (Apparently it does this no matter what the word is.) Adblock does offer to block this frame. Closing it doesn't reveal anything special underneath. The behaviour of Adblock Plus does depend on what filters you've subscribed to. I'm using Filterset.G and EasyList. The list of what they're blocking is far too long for me to guess which parts of M-W Online they might have caught. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>>> I have not been able to get Firefox to stop presenting the pesky >>>> M-W Online pop-under. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > they're blocking is far too long for me to guess which parts of M-W > Online they might have caught. It's all fixed now. I had to add a filter. Thanks. SignatureSkitt (AmE) > I haven't noticed/encountered them*, though pop-ups in general annoy me. > I "x" them out or "close" them ASAP. I think pop-ups should be outlawed > anywhere online. That's going to happen someday. Surely. (And pigs will > fly.) It's already happened. Popups exploit a bug in Internet Explorer. Better web browsers don't have that bug. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> Maria Conlon filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > *I don't go to YouTube all that often. What I wrote above is rather dated. Actually, I don't see nearly as many pop-ups as I used to. In fact, I see few. I have some great blockers (etc.) in place, and they work quite well for the most part. I can also go to Google Chrome any time I want, but IE is behaving itself these days. One disadvantage to blockers: If I don't see pop-ups, I can't be sure that anyone clicking on the URL will also not see them. Therefore, any URL posted may bring headaches to viewers that the poster is not aware of. Yes? No? So, description or not, a posted URL, when clicked on, may show things that the poster did not see and is not aware of. (Am I defending myself too much? Probably.) SignatureMaria Conlon Sat, 26 Dec 2009 12:31:22 -0500 from Maria Conlon <conlonmaria@sbcglobal.net>: > However, Lodder's remark about "linkspam" was, I think, wrong-headed. I > can't think of anything in YouTube that constitutes "spam": "noun: > unwanted e-mail (usually of a commercial nature sent out in bulk)." I agree with your characterization of his characterization; that's why I said I would not call it spam. Some people seem to suffer from flawed logic: "I don't like spam; I don't like this; therefore this is spam." FWIW, though it's correct in spirit I have two problems with the definition of spam that you quote. First, it's not just email: the original spam was newsgroup postings by the evil law firm of Canter & Siegel. Second, "unwanted" is not part of the definition: it's the quantity that makes spam, irrespective of the content. But Lodder's use of the term was much further off than your definition. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... > >>>> We are the world, we are the children.... > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Is that definition of "spam" wrong? Should the def now include any URL > in a newsgroup message? Spam is everything that asks for your attention without good justification, Jan Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:53:43 +0100 from J. J. Lodder <nospam@de- ster.demon.nl>: > > Is that definition of "spam" wrong? Should the def now include any URL > > in a newsgroup message? > > Spam is everything that asks for your attention > without good justification, "'When *I* use a word,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'it means what I choose it to mean.'" If you had said you didn't like Maria's posting a link, you'd be entitled to your opinion. But when you misuse a word, especially in *this* newsgroup, you're just wrong. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com Shikata ga nai... > Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:53:43 +0100 from J. J. Lodder <nospam@de- > ster.demon.nl>: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "'When *I* use a word,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'it means what I choose > it to mean.'" Was there any Humpty Dumpty word you didn't understand? > If you had said you didn't like Maria's posting a link, you'd be > entitled to your opinion. But when you misuse a word, especially in > *this* newsgroup, you're just wrong. Words, like 'spam' for example, may change in meaning, Jan >> Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:53:43 +0100 from J. J. Lodder <nospam@de- >> ster.demon.nl>: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Was there any Humpty Dumpty word you didn't understand? The term "spam," as used on this newsgroup [i.e., as opposed to the meat. erk], means "the same article (or essentially the same article) posted an unacceptably high number of times to one or more newsgroups." CONTENT IS IRRELEVANT. 'Spam' doesn't mean "ads." It doesn't mean "abuse." It doesn't mean "posts whose content I object to." Spam is a funky name for a phenomenon that can be measured pretty objectively: did that post appear X times? (See 3.1, "Yeah, but how many is X?') Net Abuse FAQ, 4/11/2000 >> If you had said you didn't like Maria's posting a link, you'd be >> entitled to your opinion. But when you misuse a word, especially in >> *this* newsgroup, you're just wrong. > > Words, like 'spam' for example, may change in meaning, Certainly, but I haven't seen anything that would indicate that it's been changed to either include a single posting to a single group by a regular of that group or to justify a definition of "everything that asks for your attention without good justification". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Those who study history are doomed 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to watch others repeat it. Palo Alto, CA 94304 kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > >>>> We are the world, we are the children.... > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Is that definition of "spam" wrong? Should the def now include any URL > in a newsgroup message? Yes, that's linkspam. (by definition) It's one of the most anoyed abuses on usenet. Yours was a mild case. The worst offenders just post a tinyurl. Anyway, your method is counterproductive. With just one line of explanation you would have gotten many more to follow your link, Jan >> Is that definition of "spam" wrong? Should the def now include any >> URL [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > you would have gotten many more > to follow your link, Note: (1) I just wanted to provide some enjoyment for AUE folks. (2) There's no way I can know whether the people who saw the link I provided actually clicked on it unless they say so. (3) I do not feel more "productive" if the URL is clicked on. I'm not running a business here. (As for the numbers, I know there are sites with counters, but an advancing count could mean nothing, since the "hits" could come from anywhere.) (4) No one is forced to click on any URL, provided by anyone. (5) I've never, to my knowledge, provided a link that's led to anything harmful. If you know different, please say so and back it up with facts. (6) I've already apologized to the group for not providing detail for the link. I doubt that I'll ever be so lax again. SignatureMaria Conlon > >> Is that definition of "spam" wrong? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > (6) I've already apologized to the group for not providing detail for > the link. I doubt that I'll ever be so lax again. Maria, the good news: your post wasn't spam. The not-so-good news: I've read this thread twice now, and there's still no explanation, from you or anyone else, of what lies at the other end of the link. Should I or shouldn't I allocate precious time from my life to follow where Tootsie boldly goes? -- franzi > Maria Conlon wrote, regarding her post providing a link to YouTube: >> (1) I just wanted to provide some enjoyment for AUE folks. [...] >> (6) I've already apologized to the group for not providing detail for >> the link. I doubt that I'll ever be so lax again. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Should I or shouldn't I allocate precious time from my life to follow > where Tootsie boldly goes? My error was in thinking that "we are the world, we are the children" hinted at the contents. However, I've now realized that if someone is unfamiliar with the song, the phrase means nothing. (It is quite likely that the song is better-known in the US than in other places.) I see now that your later post says much the same -- that is, that the phrase did not mean anything to you. I'm sorry for not being more aware of the need to provide better detail. SignatureMaria Conlon > Maria, the good news: your post wasn't spam. The not-so-good news: > I've read this thread twice now, and there's still no explanation, > from you or anyone else, of what lies at the other end of the link. > Should I or shouldn't I allocate precious time from my life to follow > where Tootsie boldly goes? It was quite clear from her original message that the link was to YouTube. That was sufficient explanation for me. My monthly download quota is too valuable to waste on streaming video. I'll look at YouTube if the recommendation is sufficiently convincing. As a rule, though, my default action is not to follow links that people offer. I'll go there if the associated description is detailed enough to attract my attention, or if it appears that following the link will be a low-overhead operation. One thing that does annoy me is discovering that what looks like a harmless pointer to a web site actually turns out to be something that requires Flash. That just makes me waste time going to something that I won't be able to see anyway. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>> Is that definition of "spam" wrong? Should the def now include any >>> URL [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > (6) I've already apologized to the group for not providing detail for > the link. I doubt that I'll ever be so lax again. I think Mr. Lodder is being a wee bit pompous and I wouldn't take his comments seriously. No-one is forced to read any Usenet post or (as you point out) follow any link posted here. Usenet etiquette is voluntary and anyone who feels upset by people who ignore part or all of it can simply ignore or plonk the guilty party. L. has been posting here long enough to know that you are not someone who posts malevolent links. As for the "one line of explanation" demanded by L., your original post contained "We are the world, we are the children...." - surely sufficient introduction for L. to decide whether or not to follow the link. SignatureLes (BrE) Petrol on troubled waters > As for the "one > line of explanation" demanded by L., your original post contained "We are > the world, we are the children...." - surely sufficient introduction for > L. to decide whether or not to follow the link. Well, I for one can't interpret that gnomic utterance in its given context. -- franzi >> As for the "one >> line of explanation" demanded by L., your original post contained "We [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Well, I for one can't interpret that gnomic utterance in its given > context. I imagine it to involve children behaving in such a way as to give us all hope for the future of mankind. I shall now go there and see... SignatureLes (BrE) >>> As for the "one >>> line of explanation" demanded by L., your original post contained "We [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I shall now go there and see... Hmm. A bunch of guys singing in a style far from that which I enjoy. Words on the screen towards the end: "We are the world, we are the children....", so I Googled that and found: [quote] "We Are the World" is a 1985 song and charity single recorded by the supergroup USA for Africa. It was written by Michael Jackson and Lionel Richie, and co-produced by Quincy Jones and Michael Omartian for the album We Are the World. Following Band Aid's "Do They Know It's Christmas?" project in the UK, an idea for the creation of an American benefit single for African famine relief came from activist Harry Belafonte, who, along with fundraiser Ken Kragen, was instrumental in bringing the vision to reality. Several musicians were contacted by the pair, before Jackson and Richie were assigned the task of writing the song. Following several months of working together, the duo completed the writing of "We Are the World" one night before the song's first recording session, in early 1985. The last recording session for the song was held on January 28, 1985. The historic event brought together some of the most famous artists in the music industry at the time. [endquote] So I was wrong about the "children" (except in an extended sense--"out of Africa"), but right about the (intended) message of hope. I wonder how many others here (apart from L., franzi and myself) had never heard of it. One comment on YouTube was less than positive about the clip: [quote] Isn't it ironic that the USA were the ones to use African? people as slaves ? And now, they sing that we are all equal and sh.t like that...ignorant bastards. [endquote] SignatureLes (BrE) >One comment on YouTube was less than positive about the clip: >[quote] >Isn't it ironic that the USA were the ones to use African? people as >slaves ? And now, they sing that we are all equal and sh.t like >that...ignorant bastards. >[endquote] The "ignorant bastard" is the person who made that comment. Today's citizens of the USA have not used African people as slaves. To hold them responsible for the actions of their ancestors (things that they themselves did not do) is a denial of elementary justice and is a form of racism. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>One comment on YouTube was less than positive about the clip: >>[quote] [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >they themselves did not do) is a denial of elementary justice and is a >form of racism. Not at all related, but this made me think of it. Last night a local TV channel broadcast "To The Manor Born"'s 25th Anniversary episode. Evidently, a special made in 2008. "Audrey", after trying to get through on a telephone call to a company, comments "After 200 year of the Raj, all they've learned is how to answer telephones". (Not a quote, but as best as I can remember) SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >> One comment on YouTube was less than positive about the clip: >> [quote] [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > they themselves did not do) is a denial of elementary justice and is a > form of racism. Well said. Guilt cannot be in the blood (or DNA). SignatureJames >>> One comment on YouTube was less than positive about the clip: >>> [quote] [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Well said. Guilt cannot be in the blood (or DNA). If it was, then parts of a lot of us would have to apologise to the other parts. We are descended from a whole bunch of people, some of whom did not get on. SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. >> One comment on YouTube was less than positive about the clip: >> [quote] [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > The "ignorant bastard" is the person who made that comment. And/or one who propogates it without comment. > Today's citizens of the USA have not used African people as slaves. > To hold them responsible for the actions of their ancestors (things > that they themselves did not do) is a denial of elementary justice > and is a form of racism. Ayuh. SignatureFrank ess >>> One comment on YouTube was less than positive about the clip: >>> [quote] [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> > And/or one who propogates it without comment My comment was that the comment was made. Would you have liked me to tell you how to react? I thought this was AUE, where people understood English and could think for themselves. Propagation was not my intention. >> Today's citizens of the USA have not used African people as slaves. >> To hold them responsible for the actions of their ancestors (things >> that they themselves did not do) is a denial of elementary justice >> and is a form of racism. True, but you are responding in a legalistic way to a poorly phrased comment from someone who probably has reason to make it. My interpretation of the comment is that, despite the musical emote-in comprising this clip, racism still exists in the USA (as it does everywhere else). > Ayuh. SignatureLes (BrE) On 27 Dec 2009, Leslie Danks wrote >>>> One comment on YouTube was less than positive about the clip: >>>> [quote] [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > emote-in comprising this clip, racism still exists in the USA > (as it does everywhere else). And although its modern citizens are some generations removed from slavery, it is difficult to argue against the stance that America's social and economic structures still bear the imprint of that ancestral system. Of course, that's not a peculiarly American thing: the same can be said of pretty well any society one wishes to mention. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > >One comment on YouTube was less than positive about the clip: > >[quote] [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > The "ignorant bastard" is the person who made that comment. Where was he from? Chances are very high that his country had some form of slavery in the 18th century and probably into the 19th; serfdom if nothing else. Every European country that had a colony in the Americas practiced slavery. Every European country that had a colony in sub-Saharan Africa had slavery or something tantamount to it. A particularly vile form of slavery existed in the heart of Europe within the lifetime of many of the posters here. > Today's citizens of the USA have not used African people as slaves. To > hold them responsible for the actions of their ancestors (things that > they themselves did not do) is a denial of elementary justice and is a > form of racism. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email > >>> As for the "one > >>> line of explanation" demanded by L., your original post contained "We [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > many others here (apart from L., franzi and myself) had never heard of > it. I've no confidence that I never heard it, or of it, in 1985, but it seems to have left no permanent mark in my mind. Now I know what it is, I'm happy not to visit. Sometimes I purge myself of useless sentiment, sometimes I'm shamefully mawkish. Today it's the former. -- franzi >>> As for the "one >>> line of explanation" demanded by L., your original post contained "We [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I imagine it to involve children behaving in such a way as to give us all > hope for the future of mankind. Where on earth do children do this? I don't find drugs, violence or any of the other activities indulged in by children to be in least hopeful. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> Is that definition of "spam" wrong? Should the def now include any >>>> URL [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > the world, we are the children...." - surely sufficient introduction for > L. to decide whether or not to follow the link. Sufficient for me, anyway. I understood what it was and avoided it. Now, if it had been "Do They Know It's Christmas?"... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jEnTSQStGE&feature=related SignatureJames > I think Mr. Lodder is being a wee bit pompous and I wouldn't take his > comments seriously. No-one is forced to read any Usenet post or (as you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the world, we are the children...." - surely sufficient introduction for > L. to decide whether or not to follow the link. As Maria herself has acknowledged, not everyone finds "We are the world, we are the children" meaningful in any way. Maria says it's a song, but how would I know? SignatureRob Bannister >> I think Mr. Lodder is being a wee bit pompous and I wouldn't take >> his comments seriously. No-one is forced to read any Usenet post or [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > world, we are the children" meaningful in any way. Maria says it's a > song, but how would I know? If posters were to explain every allusion that they make, I think a lot of the fun would disappear from this group. SignatureJames >>> I think Mr. Lodder is being a wee bit pompous and I wouldn't take >>> his comments seriously. No-one is forced to read any Usenet post or [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > If posters were to explain every allusion that they make, I think a lot > of the fun would disappear from this group. Well, yes, but perhaps Ron D's posts could do with the occasional footnote... SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >>>> I think Mr. Lodder is being a wee bit pompous and I wouldn't take >>>> his comments seriously. No-one is forced to read any Usenet post or [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Well, yes, but perhaps Ron D's posts could do with the occasional >footnote... Would you take away the challenge? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >> I think Mr. Lodder is being a wee bit pompous and I wouldn't take his >> comments seriously. No-one is forced to read any Usenet post or (as you [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > we are the children" meaningful in any way. Maria says it's a song, but > how would I know? You could click on the link, for example; or you could try Googling; or you could initiate a long-winded discussion with others who cannot decide whether there are crocodiles in the water. Clicking on the link would probably be quicker. Alternatively, you could say "bugger that!" and go to the next unread post. SignatureLes (BrE) > >> Is that definition of "spam" wrong? Should the def now include any > >> URL [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > (1) I just wanted to provide some enjoyment for AUE folks. And learned a new word in return, Jan >>>> Is that definition of "spam" wrong? Should the def now include any >>>> URL >>>> in a newsgroup message? >>> >>> Yes, that's linkspam. (by definition) >>> It's one of the most anoyed abuses on usenet. >> (1) I just wanted to provide some enjoyment for AUE folks. > > And learned a new word in return, Out of curiosity, I've just done a search on the word "linkspam". As far as I can tell, it doesn't mean what you think it means. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.