I hope you guys are proud of yourselves. There's now a flood of sex
ads in that thread -- the one you fertilized with your oh-so-clever
commentaries on sex ads. Before you started rejuvenating it, there
was at most a trickle -- maybe one a week -- easy to skip over because
the thread was marked as Abuse.

On Mon, 23 May 2022 08:18:36 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:

>I hope you guys are proud of yourselves. There's now a flood of sex
>ads in that thread -- the one you fertilized with your oh-so-clever
>commentaries on sex ads. Before you started rejuvenating it, there
>was at most a trickle -- maybe one a week -- easy to skip over because
>the thread was marked as Abuse.

They don't get through very often to Forte Agent users. I've not seen
a trickle, much less a flood.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On 23-May-22 18:46, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Mon, 23 May 2022 08:18:36 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> I hope you guys are proud of yourselves. There's now a flood of sex
>> ads in that thread -- the one you fertilized with your oh-so-clever
>> commentaries on sex ads. Before you started rejuvenating it, there
>> was at most a trickle -- maybe one a week -- easy to skip over because
>> the thread was marked as Abuse.
>
> They don't get through very often to Forte Agent users. I've not seen
> a trickle, much less a flood.
>
>
Less than a teaspoon?

--
Sam Plusnet

On 2022-05-23 17:51:56 +0000, Sam Plusnet said:

> On 23-May-22 18:46, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 May 2022 08:18:36 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I hope you guys are proud of yourselves. There's now a flood of sex
>>> ads in that thread -- the one you fertilized with your oh-so-clever
>>> commentaries on sex ads. Before you started rejuvenating it, there
>>> was at most a trickle -- maybe one a week -- easy to skip over because
>>> the thread was marked as Abuse.
>>
>> They don't get through very often to Forte Agent users. I've not seen
>> a trickle, much less a flood.
>>
> Less than a teaspoon?

I don't remember recently seeing any. (Which is "that thread", incidentally?)

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

On Mon, 23 May 2022 18:51:56 +0100
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

> On 23-May-22 18:46, Tony Cooper wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 May 2022 08:18:36 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> > <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I hope you guys are proud of yourselves. There's now a flood of sex
> >> ads in that thread -- the one you fertilized with your oh-so-clever
> >> commentaries on sex ads. Before you started rejuvenating it, there
> >> was at most a trickle -- maybe one a week -- easy to skip over because
> >> the thread was marked as Abuse.
> >
> > They don't get through very often to Forte Agent users. I've not seen
> > a trickle, much less a flood.
> >
> >
> Less than a teaspoon?
>
Lovely! issat 5cc or 10cc? EMNTK!
> --
> Sam Plusnet

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

* Peter T. Daniels:

> I hope you guys are proud of yourselves. There's now a flood of sex
> ads in that thread -- the one you fertilized with your oh-so-clever
> commentaries on sex ads. Before you started rejuvenating it, there
> was at most a trickle -- maybe one a week -- easy to skip over because
> the thread was marked as Abuse.

I have no idea which thread you're talking about. Guess my filters work.

Occasionally, I see (mostly) PM commenting on sex ads, but it rarely
becomes a longer thread.

--
Odo: I've met a lot of Ferengis in my time ... though some of
them may have been more wealthy, I've never met one more devious.
Quark: Thank you Odo, that means a lot to me.

In message <jf23g3Fgh6uU1@mid.individual.net> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> On 2022-05-23 17:51:56 +0000, Sam Plusnet said:

>> On 23-May-22 18:46, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 May 2022 08:18:36 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>> <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I hope you guys are proud of yourselves. There's now a flood of sex
>>>> ads in that thread -- the one you fertilized with your oh-so-clever
>>>> commentaries on sex ads. Before you started rejuvenating it, there
>>>> was at most a trickle -- maybe one a week -- easy to skip over because
>>>> the thread was marked as Abuse.
>>>
>>> They don't get through very often to Forte Agent users. I've not seen
>>> a trickle, much less a flood.
>>>
>> Less than a teaspoon?

> I don't remember recently seeing any. (Which is "that thread", incidentally?)

Nor I, but I find E-S does a pretty decent job of dealing with most of
the spam.

--
sometimes ascii is the best use of bandwidth... Tonya Engst

In message <20220523205903.0ad61d38194663fc1e56d17d@127.0.0.1> Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 May 2022 18:51:56 +0100
> Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

>> On 23-May-22 18:46, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> > On Mon, 23 May 2022 08:18:36 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> > <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I hope you guys are proud of yourselves. There's now a flood of sex
>> >> ads in that thread -- the one you fertilized with your oh-so-clever
>> >> commentaries on sex ads. Before you started rejuvenating it, there
>> >> was at most a trickle -- maybe one a week -- easy to skip over because
>> >> the thread was marked as Abuse.
>> >
>> > They don't get through very often to Forte Agent users. I've not seen
>> > a trickle, much less a flood.
>> >
>> >
>> Less than a teaspoon?
>>
> Lovely! issat 5cc or 10cc? EMNTK!

teaspoons are equiv to 5ml/5cc, tablespoons to 15cc/ml.

--
"Esprit de corpse," said the Senior Wrangler. Ridcully glared at him

On Mon, 23 May 2022 22:07:20 -0000 (UTC)
Lewis <g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

> In message <20220523205903.0ad61d38194663fc1e56d17d@127.0.0.1> Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 May 2022 18:51:56 +0100
> > Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 23-May-22 18:46, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 23 May 2022 08:18:36 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> > <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I hope you guys are proud of yourselves. There's now a flood of sex
> >> >> ads in that thread -- the one you fertilized with your oh-so-clever
> >> >> commentaries on sex ads. Before you started rejuvenating it, there
> >> >> was at most a trickle -- maybe one a week -- easy to skip over because
> >> >> the thread was marked as Abuse.
> >> >
> >> > They don't get through very often to Forte Agent users. I've not seen
> >> > a trickle, much less a flood.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Less than a teaspoon?
> >>
> > Lovely! issat 5cc or 10cc? EMNTK!
>
> teaspoons are equiv to 5ml/5cc, tablespoons to 15cc/ml.
>
I was referring to a couple of onetime popular beat combos, m'lud.
10CC, it is rumoured, was a reference to the average volume of s*m*n emitted per ejaculation. Allegedly
Another band was cheekily named The Loving Spoonful. YMMV.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On 23/05/2022 17:18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> I hope you guys are proud of yourselves. There's now a flood of sex
> ads in that thread -- the one you fertilized with your oh-so-clever
> commentaries on sex ads. Before you started rejuvenating it, there
> was at most a trickle -- maybe one a week -- easy to skip over because
> the thread was marked as Abuse.

Whine, whine, whine! Stop bitching, you bitch.

Your grasp of spam is very sketchy. That you think replying to a spam
message 'fertilises' the source is a consequence of your dismal grasp of
the issues. These mass posts (to countless NGs) rely on people clicking
on the links provided in the message. Responding to the messages
themselves makes no difference at all - except in providing
entertainment those who make the best of a bad situation.

This is your second warning, PTD. Three strikes and you are out!

Signed

For, and on behalf of,

The Committee

On Monday, May 23, 2022 at 2:52:56 PM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-05-23 17:51:56 +0000, Sam Plusnet said:
> > On 23-May-22 18:46, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> On Mon, 23 May 2022 08:18:36 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >>> I hope you guys are proud of yourselves. There's now a flood of sex
> >>> ads in that thread -- the one you fertilized with your oh-so-clever
> >>> commentaries on sex ads. Before you started rejuvenating it, there
> >>> was at most a trickle -- maybe one a week -- easy to skip over because
> >>> the thread was marked as Abuse.
> >> They don't get through very often to Forte Agent users. I've not seen
> >> a trickle, much less a flood.
> > Less than a teaspoon?
>
> I don't remember recently seeing any. (Which is "that thread", incidentally?)

"Find Local Singles Women Near Me Dating for Sex," moron.

The one you started posting in on March 30, 2022.
> --
> Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

On Tuesday, May 24, 2022 at 7:17:57 AM UTC-4, occam wrote:
> On 23/05/2022 17:18, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > I hope you guys are proud of yourselves. There's now a flood of sex
> > ads in that thread -- the one you fertilized with your oh-so-clever
> > commentaries on sex ads. Before you started rejuvenating it, there
> > was at most a trickle -- maybe one a week -- easy to skip over because
> > the thread was marked as Abuse.
> Whine, whine, whine! Stop bitching, you bitch.
>
> Your grasp of spam is very sketchy. That you think replying to a spam
> message 'fertilises' the source is a consequence of your dismal grasp of
> the issues. These mass posts (to countless NGs) rely on people clicking
> on the links provided in the message. Responding to the messages
> themselves makes no difference at all - except in providing
> entertainment those who make the best of a bad situation.

Explain, genius, why suddenly the number of sex ads in the thread
surged _after_ the thread began being filled with messages from
AUEistas. If the spambot sees that its messages get results, it
increases its efforts where the results are. I see no crosspostings,
so I have no idea how many dead newsgroups some of the "clever"
respondents are sending their information to, but wherever they
go, they are begging for more.

> This is your second warning, PTD. Three strikes and you are out!
>
> Signed
>
> For, and on behalf of,
>
> The Committee

Fraudster.

On 5/24/2022 9:57 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> occam wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>>> I hope you guys are proud of yourselves. There's now a flood of
>>> sex ads in that thread -- the one you fertilized with your
>>> oh-so-clever commentaries on sex ads. Before you started
>>> rejuvenating it, there was at most a trickle -- maybe one a week
>>> -- easy to skip over because the thread was marked as Abuse.
>> Whine, whine, whine! Stop bitching, you bitch.

>> Your grasp of spam is very sketchy. That you think replying to a
>> spam message 'fertilises' the source is a consequence of your
>> dismal grasp of the issues. These mass posts (to countless NGs)
>> rely on people clicking on the links provided in the message.
>> Responding to the messages themselves makes no difference at all -
>> except in providing entertainment those who make the best of a bad
>> situation.

> Explain, genius, why suddenly the number of sex ads in the thread
> surged _after_ the thread began being filled with messages from
> AUEistas.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, dur.

> If the spambot sees that its messages get results, it increases its
> efforts where the results are. I see no crosspostings, so I have no
> idea how many dead newsgroups some of the "clever" respondents are
> sending their information to, but wherever they go, they are begging
> for more.

Maybe it's lurkers who take the bait. ("Lurker" would be a good name for
a fish.)

[...]

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 7:13:38 AM UTC-4, CDB wrote:
> On 5/24/2022 9:57 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> > Explain, genius, why suddenly the number of sex ads in the thread
> > surged _after_ the thread began being filled with messages from
> > AUEistas.
>
> Post hoc ergo propter hoc, dur.

Is that Canadian for "duh"? Shirley, you're not non-rhotic?

On 5/25/2022 10:53 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> CDB wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>>> Explain, genius, why suddenly the number of sex ads in the
>>> thread surged _after_ the thread began being filled with messages
>>> from AUEistas.

>> Post hoc ergo propter hoc, dur.

> Is that Canadian for "duh"? Shirley, you're not non-rhotic?

It's a traditional form in this group, much of which is non-rhotic. I
used it to soften the impact.