Quote:
Same here; passing on info on how to save money is abit like saying "the cheapest online store for 'a Title' is Amazon/DeepDiscout/Play" etc and we don't say those are spam... infact they're usually encouraged.

Quote:
Just went to the web page (http://www.quidco.com/).  As I said before this is SPAM .  Here are some of the things off the page.

    * Computers up to 10% cashback
    * Free film trials up to £14.50 cashback
    * Mobile phones up to £100 cashback
    * Insurance up to £125 cashback

    * Free to join
    * £5 subscription (held annually from your Quidco earnings, not charged)
      » more info
    * 100% cashback rates

This page doesn't just cover DVD's.  It is a SUBSCRIPTION service.  This is not a person saying hey I found a new movie for 5.99 instead of 29.99.  This is a person who works for a company directing you to their page to JOIN for a cost.  SPAM!!!

Quote:
I do not know why you think you have to be right, when you are not.  Any UNSOLICITED ad whether in email or in forums has become to be known as SPAM even by informal definition.  Call it what you want it is still a JUNK post and deserves the title.  It was unsolicited by the people in this forum, a word you used in all of your definitions which probably came from dictionary.com.  I am not here to joust you verbally or to argue semantics.  You have the right to your opinion, just realize that no matter what you call it this is unsolicited, unwarranted, and unwanted advertisement.  I call that SPAM!!!

Quote:
Quoting Opus T. Penguin:

Quote:
Quoting Lord Of The Sith:
 

Quote:
I do not know why you think you have to be right, when you are not.  Any UNSOLICITED ad whether in email or in forums has become to be known as SPAM even by informal definition.  Call it what you want it is still a JUNK post and deserves the title.  It was unsolicited by the people in this forum, a word you used in all of your definitions which probably came from dictionary.com.  I am not here to joust you verbally or to argue semantics.  You have the right to your opinion, just realize that no matter what you call it this is unsolicited, unwarranted, and unwanted advertisement.  I call that SPAM!!!

Because by DEFINITION, I am right. If you could possibly post a few links to back up your argument I'd be more than happy to review them. and BTW I used 3 sources. I know better than to ever use 1.

Here are your three definitions from three sources

Newsgroup spam is a type of spam where the targets are Usenet newsgroups.

Spamming of Usenet newsgroups actually pre-dates e-mail spam. The first widely recognized Usenet spam (though not the most famous) was posted on January 18, 1994 by Clarence L. Thomas IV, a sysadmin at Andrews University.[1][2] Entitled "Global Alert for All: Jesus is Coming Soon",[3] it was a fundamentalist religious tract claiming that "this world's history is coming to a climax." The newsgroup posting bot Serdar Argic also appeared in early 1994, posting tens of thousands of messages to various newsgroups, consisting of identical copies of a political screed relating to the Armenian Genocide.

The first commercial Usenet spam,[4][2] and the one which is often (mistakenly) claimed to be the first Usenet spam of any sort, was an advertisement for legal services entitled "Green Card Lottery - Final One?".[5] It was posted in April 1994 by Arizona lawyers Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel, and hawked legal representation for United States immigrants seeking papers ("green cards").

Usenet convention defines spamming as excessive multiple posting, that is, the repeated posting of a message (or substantially similar messages). During the early 1990s there was substantial controversy among Usenet system administrators (news admins) over the use of cancel messages to control spam. A cancel message is a directive to news servers to delete a posting, causing it to be inaccessible to those who might read it. Some regarded this as a bad precedent, leaning towards censorship, while others considered it a proper use of the available tools to control the growing spam problem.

A culture of neutrality towards content precluded defining spam on the basis of advertisement or commercial solicitations. The word "spam" was usually taken to mean excessive multiple posting (EMP), and other neologisms were coined for other abuses — such as "velveeta" (from the processed cheese product) for excessive cross-posting.[6] A subset of spam was deemed cancellable spam, for which it is considered justified to issue third-party cancel messages.[7]

In the late 1990s, spam became used as a means of vandalising newsgroups, with malicious users committing acts of sporgery to make targeted newsgroups all but unreadable without heavily filtering. A prominent example occurred in alt.religion.scientology. Another known example is the Meow Wars.

Prevalent in recent times is the MI-5 Persecution spam, which is well known across many, many newsgroups. These rambling postings often appear as clusters of 20 or more messages with varying subjects and content, but all related to Mike Corley's perceived surveillance of himself by MI5, the British intelligence agency. These rambling messages used to state the originator as MI5Victim@mi5.gov.uk. Lately (December 2007) the spammer has taken to altering the "from" address and subject line in an attempt to get past newsgroup "kill" filters. This UK-based spammer readily admits that he has mental illness in several of his postings.

The prevalence of Usenet spam led to the development of the Breidbart Index as an objective measure of a message's "spamminess". The use of the BI and spam-detection software has led to Usenet being policed by anti-spam volunteers, who purge newsgroups of spam by sending cancels and filtering it out on the way into servers. This very active form of policing has meant that Usenet is a far less attractive target to spammers than it used to be, and most of the industrial-scale spammers have now moved into e-mail spam instead.

[edit] References

  1. ^ Templeton, Brad. Origin of the term "spam" to mean net abuse. Retrieved on 2006-07-11.
  2. ^ a b 20 Year Archive on Google Groups. Google (2003). Retrieved on 2006-07-11.
  3. ^ http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9401191510.AA18576%40jse.stat.ncsu.edu
  4. ^ History of Spam. Mailmsg.com. Retrieved on 2006-07-11.
  5. ^ http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2odj9q%2425q%40herald.indirect.com
  6. ^ velveeta
  7. ^ FAQ: Current Usenet spam thresholds and guidelines

There are two main types of spam, and they have different effects on Internet users. Cancellable Usenet spam is a single message sent to 20 or more Usenet newsgroups. (Through long experience, Usenet users have found that any message posted to so many newsgroups is often not relevant to most or all of them.) Usenet spam is aimed at "lurkers", people who read newsgroups but rarely or never post and give their address away. Usenet spam robs users of the utility of the newsgroups by overwhelming them with a barrage of advertising or other irrelevant posts. Furthermore, Usenet spam subverts the ability of system administrators and owners to manage the topics they accept on their systems.

And before you point out we are not a newsgroup...

Same as forum, an on-line discussion group. On the Internet, there are literally thousands of newsgroups covering every conceivable interest. To view and post messages to a newsgroup, you need a news reader, a program that runs on your computer and connects you to a news server on the Internet.

Much to the chagrin of Hormel Foods, maker of the canned "Shoulder Pork and hAM"/"SPiced hAM" luncheon meat, the term "spam" has today come to mean network abuse, particularly junk E-mail and massive junk postings to USENET.

Quote:
Quoting Lord Of The Sith:
 

Quote:
single message sent to 20 or more Usenet newsgroups

Thank you for the info.  I have highlighted those comments that further prove this ONE post is not spam. What you've posted here is undeniable proof of that. I'm sure that after you review your post you'll agree that 1 single posting cannot be considered spam. If you don't, then you'll be arguing against your own support.

Quote:
Quoting Lord Of The Sith:

Quote:
Just went to the web page (http://www.quidco.com/).  As I said before this is SPAM .  Here are some of the things off the page.

    * Computers up to 10% cashback
    * Free film trials up to £14.50 cashback
    * Mobile phones up to £100 cashback
    * Insurance up to £125 cashback

    * Free to join
    * £5 subscription (held annually from your Quidco earnings, not charged)
      » more info
    * 100% cashback rates

This page doesn't just cover DVD's.  It is a SUBSCRIPTION service.  This is not a person saying hey I found a new movie for 5.99 instead of 29.99.  This is a person who works for a company directing you to their page to JOIN for a cost.  SPAM!!!

Can someone explain to me why this is worth a red arrow and also why someone waited a few days to give it to me.  I am not begging for greens, I am just being curious.  Did I actually say something wrong or is someone just not happy with my opinion?