Re: RJ

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Daniel A. Foss: "the whatexactly did you say to the same degree all make w"
• Previous message: Mary Irving: "R.J. WHO?"

Peter Lovell writes:
> But what finally drove me off several newsgroups was RJ's spamming.

I find myself in an odd position with regard to Robert Johnson.

I find his own posts highly unpleasant (all ad hominem attacks, and
never anything constructive or interesting), but I find a lot of the
material he forwards from elsewhere really interesting.

On the other hand, it's his spamming (reposting of long extracts
to multiple mailing lists and newsgroups, often very marginally on
topic) of which I disapprove, while I support his right to express his
personal opinions! (To see my motivation for this, people might like
to check out the news.admin.net-abuse.announce FAQ -- Usenet spam,
or excessive multi-posting, gets cancelled on purely formal grounds,
without regard to content.)

If the list software supports it, I would back a "no more than N
messages per person per week" limit (for some value of N), or better
still a "no more than M kilobytes per person per week" one (or some
combination thereof).

Danny Yee.

P.S. I'm curious as to why RJ doesn't post to sci.anthropology.
I had assumed he had no access to Usenet, but from what Peter says
he obviously does.

P.P.S. Anyone who remembers Serdar Argic will realise RJ is in the
minor league as far as spammers go.

• Next message: Daniel A. Foss: "the whatexactly did you say to the same degree all make w"
• Previous message: Mary Irving: "R.J. WHO?"