From the Provasek (prosovek prozacset - whatever) school of marketing.

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:47:49 GMT, "Bob Peterson" wrote:
spam = unsolicited commercial email. this is an almost universal
definition, except by those who wish to spam.

regardless of any justification he might think he has, his emails seem to
qualify on all three points. they are email, they are commercial, and they
are unsolicited.

I have never purchased anything from frank, yet several times I have gotten
emails from him. one was especially interesting. it was a long missive
about his problems with his ISP. apparently he was spanked for sending
spam, so his response was more spam.

I assume you forwarded it to abuse@ his domain?

MP-
--
"Learning is a behavior that results from consequences."
B.F. Skinner

"R. Totale" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:54:54 GMT, "LM5403"
wrote:

I consider ANY unsolicited non-personal email from anyone, whether I
have done business with them or not, to be spam, as any like snail
mail is junk mail. It earns them an immediate spot on my "never buy
from again" list.

The key, as someone else said, is conSENT, not conTENT. Absolutely
ANY spam that appears in my inbox gets submitted to SPAMCOP.NET
where it is used to build block lists (or black lists as some say) that are
used by hundreds of ISPs to filter spam.

\ spam = unsolicited commercial email. this is an almost universal
definition, except by those who wish to spam.

regardless of any justification he might think he has, his emails seem to
qualify on all three points. they are email, they are commercial, and
they are unsolicited.

I have never purchased anything from frank, yet several times I have
gotten emails from him. one was especially interesting. it was a long
missive about his problems with his ISP. apparently he was spanked for
sending spam, so his response was more spam.

It must also be sent in bulk.

"Bob Peterson" wrote

I have never purchased anything from frank, yet several times I have
gotten emails from him. one was especially interesting. it was a long
missive about his problems with his ISP. apparently he was spanked for
sending spam, so his response was more spam.

The email in question to my friends about a coordinated attack by a
psychotic
person who posted horrible allegations that I was a child molester and such,
and
eventually had enough people believeing to have not only my local police
involved,
but to have my ISP shut me down. It seems that I sent a detailed letter to
my so-called
"friends" in RCC in my own defense from a library computer or somewhere,
but
some even considered that "unwelcome."

"R. Totale" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:54:54 GMT, "LM5403"
wrote:

The key, as someone else said, is conSENT, not conTENT. Absolutely
ANY spam that appears in my inbox gets submitted to SPAMCOP.NET

Then you have violated spamcop.net's terms of service....

http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/125.html


SpamCop users should know what is and is not appropriate to report as spam
to SpamCop.

Spam is unsolicited bulk email. Not all bulk email is spam. Not all
commercial email is spam. Email must be unsolicited and bulk in order to be
spam.

Spam is bulk email. If someone writes to an individual personally,
one-on-one, to ask a question or inquire about a post made to a newsgroup or
website, then that is not spam, even if it contains commercial or marketing
content

Calling something spam when it is not spam is harmful. Erroneous reports
cause abuse desks to take SpamCop reports less seriously; they also lead to
the unjust and unfair suspension or termination of the reported account.
SpamCop's maintainers and deputies must handle erroneously filed reports,
which is not an effective use of SpamCop staff resources. Additionally, spam
reports feed the SpamCop Blocking List (SCBL). Erroneous reports make the
SCBL less accurate and potentially cause thousands of sites to block
mistakenly wanted, solicited email. For these reasons, there are penalties
for violating the rules that have been set forth here and in the Acceptable
Use Policy.
Free Reporting Service Users:
SpamCop will ban users of the free reporting service who violate these
rules.

Paying Reporting Service Members:
SpamCop may fine, suspend or terminate the accounts of paid members who
violate these rules.

"Phil DeMayo" wrote in


Yep, that sounds like Frank. Kind of like when he cross-posts his
claims that he doesn't cross-post. ;-)

You do know that cross POSTing refers to POSTing the original article.
Rarely have I crossPOSTed anything here. When replying to an article that
OTHERS have posted I don't trim other groups because that cuts off people
who
have participated in the discussion.

Do you have a life, Phil? Your contributions to this newsgroup are about
the level of
the typical troll.

Your obsessive war with collectors of contemporary counterfeits, your
tendency to
partially quote sources and deliberately omitting portions which refute your
biases,
and remarks like the recent one that I had no customers of my own before
ebay
when I KNOW you have seen my home page showing nearly 4 decades experience
in coins (when you were nitpicking whether my ANA membership number was
displayed
in enough places.)

You would be such a happier person if you would MIND YOUR BUSINESS as
shown on the Fugio cent.

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 17:52:21 GMT, "Frank Provasek"
wrote:

"Phil DeMayo" wrote in


Yep, that sounds like Frank. Kind of like when he cross-posts his
claims that he doesn't cross-post. ;-)

You do know that cross POSTing refers to POSTing the original article.

Another convenient definition according to Provasek. I suppose you
don't POST those replies. The only reason this last response of yours
only appeared in RCC was because I removed a.m.o.e. before I responded.

Rarely have I crossPOSTed anything here.

You just did it four days ago.

When replying to an article that OTHERS have posted I don't trim other groups
because that cuts off people who have participated in the discussion.

You ought to try it sometime since most of the stuff you decide to
cross-post has nothing to do with RCC and is unwanted by most here.

Do you have a life, Phil?

I have a simply marvelous life.

Your contributions to this newsgroup are about the level of
the typical troll.

If that's what you think you haven't been paying attention to the more
than 9000 posts I've made in the last 7 years.

Your obsessive war with collectors of contemporary counterfeits

I have no control over what other people collect and I have only argued
with those who mistakenly believe that possession of counterfeit coins
is legal in the US.

your tendency to partially quote sources and deliberately omitting portions
which refute your biases

I don't deliberately omit anything.

and remarks like the recent one that I had no customers of my own before
ebay when I KNOW you have seen my home page showing nearly 4 decades
experience in coins

I have about the same length of "experience" in coins, but that hardly
qualifies me to claim a customer base.

(when you were nitpicking whether my ANA membership number was
displayed in enough places.)

Hmmm....the nitpicking seems to have worked since you now include your
member number as required when using the ANA logo.

You would be such a happier person if you would MIND YOUR BUSINESS as
shown on the Fugio cent.

Bite me.

Frank Provasek wrote:
\ spam = unsolicited commercial email. this is an almost universal
definition, except by those who wish to spam.

regardless of any justification he might think he has, his emails seem to
qualify on all three points. they are email, they are commercial, and
they are unsolicited.

I have never purchased anything from frank, yet several times I have
gotten emails from him. one was especially interesting. it was a long
missive about his problems with his ISP. apparently he was spanked for
sending spam, so his response was more spam.

It must also be sent in bulk.

Nonsense....not all ISPs or web entities have "bulk" included in their
definitions of spam and many that do say it "MAY consist of bulk...."

However, since this discussion has been about eBay spam, only eBay's
defintion matters....and they have no "bulk" requirement:

+++++++++++++++++
Spam is not permitted on eBay.

Spam is email that is both unsolicited and commercial in nature.

Unsolicited: The email has been sent without the permission of the
person who received it
Commercial: The email discusses buying, selling or trading of goods or
services

Violations of this policy may result in a range of actions, including:

Listing cancellation
Limits on account privileges
Account suspension
Forfeit of eBay fees on cancelled listings
Loss of PowerSeller status
+++++++++++++++

"Phil DeMayo" wrote in message
oups.com...

Spam is not permitted on eBay.

Spam is email that is both unsolicited and commercial in nature.

Unsolicited: The email has been sent without the permission of the
person who received it
Commercial: The email discusses buying, selling or trading of goods or
services

Violations of this policy may result in a range of actions, including:

Listing cancellation
Limits on account privileges
Account suspension
Forfeit of eBay fees on cancelled listings
Loss of PowerSeller status
+++++++++++++++


This is blantant restraint of trade, and ebay would likely face massive
fines if this were
ever pressed in court.

JohnL wrote:
On 23 Jul 2005 12:27:37 -0700, "Phil DeMayo" wrote:

You would be such a happier person if you would MIND YOUR BUSINESS as
shown on the Fugio cent.

Bite me.

I was eagerly a aiting the "bite me" phrase. :-)

Always happy to oblige when circumstances dictate.

I was wondering, if a bad person (oh, for example, Frank) calls a good
person (let's say, Phil) a troll, does that really mean anything?

Probably means about as much as when Goldsborough says it. ;-)

Welcome to Frank's fantasy world, Phil, you troll, you!. :-)

JohnL
(already made Frank's "Troll List" years ago)

Oh, I'm sure I've been on that list for quite some time as well.
Although, it's not as bad as some of the things his sock-puppets have
called me. I can't remember if it was Yates or Dorman who called me an
a**hole.

You must always consider the source.