"TheClap" <the_clap@afn.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9457E3E80B5F0theclap@207.14.113.17...

What's this antisemitic flood all about? Does this quaify as spam?
--
Gary

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In comp.lang.c, Gary (glabowitz@comcast.net) wrote:
> "TheClap" <the_clap@afn.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns9457E3E80B5F0theclap@207.14.113.17...
>
> What's this antisemitic flood all about? Does this quaify as spam?

It qualifies as off-topic braindead flood. Not that I agree or
disagree with the content of those messages, but this is surely not the
place for discussing such topics.

Followup to soc.culture.jewish just in case someone wants to
continue/start the flame far away from here.

Regards.
- --
My real e-mail address: chema (AT) chema.homelinux.org
http://EuropeSwPatentFree.hispalinux.es - EuropeSwPatentFree
I don't read HTML posts / No leo mensajes en HTML
Blog Overflow: http://chema.homelinux.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/5f2C9P6GbSlI+hkRAklxAKCheybrp7orfqSGI6fwbz/sfHYz7ACeOEOQ
fubvjLss1VVERNPv4mPHlIM=
=eGIT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Jos? Mar?a Mateos <chema-news@chema.homelinux.org> wrote:

pgp trash troll delete

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1

> It qualifies as off-topic braindead flood. Not that I agree or
> disagree with the content of those messages, but this is surely
> not the place for discussing such topics.

What is not off-topic, however, is your unwarranted inline use of
pgp, which violates usenet standards of netiquette, not to mention
this ng's specific policy.

Could you please refrain from the unwarranted use of pgp in the
future?

Thank you.

cordially, as always,

rm

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2003-12-21, dcba@dcba.dcba.org <dcba@dcba.dcba.org> rambled:

> this ng's specific policy.

We have a policy ? I thought we were an autonomous collective ?

- --
Monty Python

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/5jaHoOMCLVDeF1sRAtFDAJ9YpkQXIR3biQBJsSY3I/GTtsO4zACgqwVz
Di0w04DzPtKFWP17cfhFtjU=
=EsFp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Billy Watt wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 2003-12-21, dcba@dcba.dcba.org <dcba@dcba.dcba.org> rambled:
>
>> this ng's specific policy.
>
> We have a policy ? I thought we were an autonomous collective ?
>
> - --
> Monty Python
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQE/5jaHoOMCLVDeF1sRAtFDAJ9YpkQXIR3biQBJsSY3I/GTtsO4zACgqwVz
> Di0w04DzPtKFWP17cfhFtjU=
> =EsFp
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1) You're fooling yourself! We're living in a dictatorship, where the upper
classes...

2) There you go again, bringing class into it

3) BUT THATS WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT!

Billy Watt <newsspam@cjwatt.plus.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1

pgp trash troll delete

> On 2003-12-21, dcba@dcba.dcba.org <dcba@dcba.dcba.org> rambled:

> > this ng's specific policy.

> We have a policy ? I thought we were an autonomous collective ?

Now that you know about the policy you have no excuse for any more
pgp trash trolling. Please show some consideration for the other
posters.

cordially, as always,

rm

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 03:05:23 +0000, dcba wrote:

> Billy Watt <newsspam@cjwatt.plus.com> wrote:
>> We have a policy ? I thought we were an autonomous collective ?
>
> Now that you know about the policy you have no excuse for any more
> pgp trash trolling.
>
> rm

There is no set policy for this newsgroup. If you want a policy,
then go through the process to create a policy and/or moderated
group. Your personal desire has no value otherwise.

Jim

Jim <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 03:05:23 +0000, dcba wrote:

> > Now that you know about the policy you have no excuse for any
> > more pgp trash trolling.

> There is no set policy for this newsgroup. If you want a policy,
> then go through the process to create a policy and/or moderated
> group. Your personal desire has no value otherwise.

There most certainly is a policy and the use of inline pgp violates
that policy. The policy of this group is that users follow the
standard usenet netiquette directives.

It most certainly is not a matter of personal preferance. Personal
preference for the pgp affectation violates usenet conventions and
thereby violates this ng's policy.

cordially, as always,

rm

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:10:05 +0000, dcba wrote:

> Jim <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 03:05:23 +0000, dcba wrote:
>
>> > Now that you know about the policy you have no excuse for any
>> > more pgp trash trolling.
>
>> There is no set policy for this newsgroup. If you want a policy,
>> then go through the process to create a policy and/or moderated
>> group. Your personal desire has no value otherwise.
>
> There most certainly is a policy and the use of inline pgp violates
> that policy. The policy of this group is that users follow the
> standard usenet netiquette directives.

Incorrect. To quote from RFC 1855 which deals with netiquette.

Abstract

This document provides a minimum set of guidelines for Network
Etiquette (Netiquette) which organizations may take and adapt for
their own use.

A quideline is not policy.

Other specific information from the "guideline":

- Forging of news articles is generally censured. You can protect
yourself from forgeries by using software which generates a
manipulation detection "fingerprint", such as PGP (in the US).

This is the only mention of PGP/GPG in RFC 1855.

Jim

Jim <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> Abstract

> This document provides a minimum set of guidelines for Network
> Etiquette (Netiquette) which organizations may take and adapt for
> their own use.

> A quideline is not policy.

Usenet guidelines are a.o.l.s policy. We doubt anybody would
dispute that.

> Other specific information from the "guideline":

> - Forging of news articles is generally censured. You can protect
> yourself from forgeries by using software which generates a
> manipulation detection "fingerprint", such as PGP (in the US).

pgp does not protect anybody from forgeries because it is not
mandatory to use pgp. The reason it is not mandatory to use pgp is
because 99.9999999% of all internet users hate it.

Furthermore, it was shown in an earlier post that only pgp in the
form of a mime attachment is acceptable. Inline pgp is a
netiquette violation.

Nice try, though.

cordially, as always,

rm