Australian Politics Forum

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl General Discussion >> Feedback >> defining 'spam' http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1389459485 Message started by Deathridesahorse on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 2:58am

Title: defining 'spam'
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 2:58am

Go on then.... ;D

Title: Re: defining 'spam'
Post by FriYAY on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:19pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 2:58am:

Go on then.... ;D

It is the light...

Title: Re: defining 'spam'
Post by # on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:28pm

In a forum environment, I'd say SPAM is anything that does not advance debate.

Title: Re: defining 'spam'
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:46pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 2:58am:

Go on then.... ;D

Constantly calling forum members "kiddy fiddlers".

Title: Re: defining 'spam'
Post by viewpoint on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:33pm

Or maybe.....muppets!

Title: Re: defining 'spam'
Post by # on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 8:10pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:46pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 2:58am:

Go on then.... ;D

Constantly calling forum members "kiddy fiddlers".

Don't you mean "Repeatedly calling ..."?

Title: Re: defining 'spam'
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 9:40pm

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 8:10pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:46pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 2:58am:

Go on then.... ;D

Constantly calling forum members "kiddy fiddlers".

Don't you mean "Repeatedly calling ..."?

No.

I mean 'Constantly calling ... '.

Title: Re: defining 'spam'
Post by Kat on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 2:00pm

Anything Maqqa posts... :P

Title: Re: defining 'spam'
Post by # on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 3:30pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 9:40pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 8:10pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:46pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 2:58am:

Go on then.... ;D

Constantly calling forum members "kiddy fiddlers".

Don't you mean "Repeatedly calling ..."?

No.

I mean 'Constantly calling ... '.

So it's all one long call ... he doesn't stop for breath?

Title: Re: defining 'spam'
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 3:50pm

# wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 3:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 9:40pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 8:10pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:46pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 2:58am:

Go on then.... ;D

Constantly calling forum members "kiddy fiddlers".

Don't you mean "Repeatedly calling ..."?

No.

I mean 'Constantly calling ... '.

So it's all one long call ... he doesn't stop for breath?

That's correct.

Title: Re: defining 'spam'
Post by muso on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 5:15pm

Excessive multiple posting. (especially if annoying)

In the context of this forum - it may be defined as spam, subject to the moderator's judgement.

Title: Re: defining 'spam'
Post by Innocent bystander on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 5:53pm

Any post from a global warming "deniar" would regarded as spam hey muso? ;D ... can you let me back on the environment board now buddy, the oil companies that are paying me to post denialist sh*t on this board aren't happy that I got banned ;D

Title: Re: defining 'spam'
Post by perceptions_now on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 8:14pm

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 5:53pm:

Any post from a global warming "deniar" would regarded as spam hey muso? ;D ... can you let me back on the environment board now buddy, the oil companies that are paying me to post denialist sh*t on this board aren't happy that I got banned ;D

Gee, did you get banned IB?

That's no good?

Do you think it was because you post denialist sh*t?

Title: Re: defining 'spam'
Post by Innocent bystander on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 8:26pm

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 8:14pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 5:53pm:

Gee, did you get banned IB?

That's no good?

Do you think it was because you post denialist sh*t?

Absolutely, if theirs one thing the global warming cult won't abide its someone dissing their religion ;D , of course they won't admit to that, they will just use some excuse like oh he was a bit rude in one of his pots or some such sh*t to get rid of him :D
Anything but take him on on a level playing field ;D

Title: Re: defining 'spam'
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 10:03pm

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 5:53pm:

Any post from a global warming "deniar" would regarded as spam hey muso?

That's correct.

# likes to ban people for simply not subscribing to the AGW theory.

However, he and DRAH are permitted to post personal abuse whenever they like.

Title: Re: defining 'spam'
Post by Chimp_Logic on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 11:11pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 10:03pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 5:53pm:

Any post from a global warming "deniar" would regarded as spam hey muso?

That's correct.

# likes to ban people for simply not subscribing to the AGW theory.

However, he and DRAH are permitted to post personal abuse whenever they like.

I must agree with you on that point

Its absolutely disgraceful - totally unacceptable.

The double standards utterly reprehensible and morally disgusting

How do they get away with it day in day out, you deranged, rotting, filth ridden putrid decaying weasel carcass freak fascist maggot?

Title: Re: defining 'spam'
Post by # on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 9:54am

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 3:50pm:

# wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 3:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 9:40pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 8:10pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:46pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 2:58am:

Go on then.... ;D

Constantly calling forum members "kiddy fiddlers".

Don't you mean "Repeatedly calling ..."?

No.

I mean 'Constantly calling ... '.

So it's all one long call ... he doesn't stop for breath?

That's correct.

That's improbable.

Title: Re: defining 'spam'
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 9:57am

# wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 9:54am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 3:50pm:

# wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 3:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 9:40pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 8:10pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:46pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 2:58am:

Go on then.... ;D

Constantly calling forum members "kiddy fiddlers".

Don't you mean "Repeatedly calling ..."?

No.

I mean 'Constantly calling ... '.

So it's all one long call ... he doesn't stop for breath?

That's correct.

That's improbable.

Probably.

Title: Re: defining 'spam'
Post by Chimp_Logic on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 10:00am

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 9:57am:

# wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 9:54am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 3:50pm:

# wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 3:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 9:40pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 8:10pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:46pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 2:58am:

Go on then.... ;D

Constantly calling forum members "kiddy fiddlers".

Don't you mean "Repeatedly calling ..."?

No.

I mean 'Constantly calling ... '.

So it's all one long call ... he doesn't stop for breath?

That's correct.

That's improbable.

Probably.

It's most likely, unlikely

Title: Re: defining 'spam'
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 10:07am

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 10:00am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 9:57am:

# wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 9:54am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 3:50pm:

# wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 3:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 9:40pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 8:10pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:46pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 2:58am:

Go on then.... ;D

Constantly calling forum members "kiddy fiddlers".

Don't you mean "Repeatedly calling ..."?

No.

I mean 'Constantly calling ... '.

So it's all one long call ... he doesn't stop for breath?

That's correct.

That's improbable.

Probably.

It's most likely, unlikely

That's possible.

Title: Re: defining 'spam'
Post by # on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 10:40am

One interpretation of SPAM is as an acronym: Sh!t Parading As Meat. I guess the question then becomes; what is meat and what is err... not meat?

In the context of this forum, meat is that which contributes to debate of the subject. That subject may be the title of the topic or some side issue onto which discussion has wandered.

That last is particularly tricky. The dominant tactic of some of this forum's dedicated trolls is distraction; diverting discussion away from a subject. Does that diversion qualify as SPAM?

Is it SPAM to repeat an assertion, for which you've not been able to provide supporting evidence? I'd say it is. No matter how fervently a belief is held, simply repeating it doesn't contribute to debate.

Quite often, a troll's behaviour makes their character a subject for discussion. At some point, does that discussion become SPAM? If so, at what point does it become something other than a side issue?

One common tactic is to answer a question other than the one that was asked. For example, posting a link to a search engine or to a guide to using a search engine. I'd say that's SPAM, unless the subject is or has become search engines or their use.

Then there's the obvious: off-topic posts. Deathridesahorse has repeatedly been warned and banned for off-topic, frequently abusive, posts. It's annoying and unproductive, but I'd say less insidious and wasteful than the manipulative SPAM of others, such as greggerypeccary.

Title: Re: defining 'spam'
Post by # on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 1:54pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 10:03pm:

...
# likes to ban people for simply not subscribing to the AGW theory.
...

Is that true? Weren't you banned for bad behaviour?

Is everyone who argues against Anthropogenic Global Warming banned from the Environment board?

Title: Re: defining 'spam'
Post by Chimp_Logic on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 1:58pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 10:07am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 10:00am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 9:57am:

# wrote on Jan 25^th, 2014 at 9:54am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 3:50pm:

# wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 3:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 9:40pm:

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 8:10pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:46pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 12^th, 2014 at 2:58am:

Go on then.... ;D

Constantly calling forum members "kiddy fiddlers".

Don't you mean "Repeatedly calling ..."?

No.

I mean 'Constantly calling ... '.

So it's all one long call ... he doesn't stop for breath?

That's correct.

That's improbable.

Probably.

It's most likely, unlikely

That's possible.

Youre starting to see the light Mr Greggy

You just never know, in two or three decades, and with the a bit of luck and divine intervention and/or alien assistance, YOU may be able to interpret this graph in a correct and grown up way.

You just never know Mr Greggy - miracles do happen sometimes

Skeptics_v_Realists_002.jpg (79 KB | 40 )

Title: Re: defining 'spam'
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 3:53pm

"In a forum environment, I'd say SPAM is anything that does not advance debate."

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1389459485/2#2

Graph:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1390368011/10#10

Same graph, 4 posts later, in the same thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1390368011/14#14

Same graph, same thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1390368011/31#31

Followed up with:

"must hurt a bit, kind of sums up your religion rather nicely doesn't it Pastor Gizmo - you putrid foul stench emitting clown freak fascist maggot of Hades"

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1390368011/31#31

So, the same piece of information, posted three times in the same thread, followed up by personal abuse.

Interesting.

Title: Re: defining 'spam'
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 4:20pm

SPAM HATES THE CHILDREN??! :o

Title: Re: defining 'spam'
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 8:18pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 4:20pm:

SPAM HATES THE CHILDREN??! :o

And vice versa.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1boW28kk9Gc

Title: Re: defining 'spam'
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 11:14pm

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:28pm:

In a forum environment, I'd say SPAM is anything that does not advance debate.

Is this clown advancing debate?

"Disingenuous is what disingenuous does! Still hating the kids ay fella!! "

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1390368011/40#40

Title: Re: defining 'spam'
Post by greggerypeccary on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 11:31pm

# wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 2:28pm:

In a forum environment, I'd say SPAM is anything that does not advance debate.

Is this advancing debate?

"Disingenuous is what disingenuous does! Still hating the kids ay fella!! "

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1390368011/40#40

Title: Re: defining 'spam'
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 2:53am

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 3:53pm:

victim = SPAMHEAD :o :o ;D