Re: [UUPoly-L] spam

[P O <wild_card@sbcglobal.net>]

Sorry John, I gotta go with J T on this one.  The post
you left about the clp said nothing about First
Amendment RIghts or what the clip was actually about. 
It only said it was about 'Baby Powel'.  Why should I,
as  UU or a Poly, give a damn about Baby Powel?  The
post fails to answer that question.

Now, if you'd said it was a video called "FCC FU",
done to the tune of a christmas carol, I might not
consider it spam.  As it is however, you posted a link
with a message that didn't sem to apply to the group
and to a clip that didn't match the description.  That
kinda covers the definition of spam to me.

In future, maybe it would help to just be a bit
clearer about why the posted link should be of
interest to the group.

Pat


-
> >    1. W Says: "Don't Watch This" (John Ullman)
> > > From: John Ullman <jsu627@earthlink.net>
> > Subject: [UUPoly-L] W Says: "Don't Watch This"
> > Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 15:33:57 -0700
> > To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
> > 
> > This video is aimed at the shenanigans of Adam
> > Cullen Powell's son, Baby Powel:
> > 
> >
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbAfFTB9Io8&mode=related&search=
> > 
> > Enjoy,
> > 
> > John U
> > 
>
> 
> JT Moore wrote:           (On 04:50 AM 9/10/2006)
> >And what, exactly, does this SPAM have to do with
> UU
> >Polys?
> >Where's our moderator????  A reminder of
> inappropriate
> >postings appears to be necessary.
> >John Moore
> 
> Moi? A spammer? Well, I do enjoy the irony of
> someone responding to a 
> post about the serious erosion of our First
> Ammendment rights by 
> saying "Shut up!" But I don't think it takes a
> rocket scientist to 
> connect the dots between Bushtian intolerance and
> censorship and the 
> vital interests of the members of this group.
> Without free speech, 
> we're dead meat.
> 
> John U
> 
>