Arran

No.

If you really gave a damn about the group's conventions regarding advertising, you would have asked _without_ including your ad.

The only thing worse than an ignorant spammer, is a "screw you, I'll do whatever I want" spammer. Great way to tell everyone who to _avoid_ there, spammer.

I'll take that as a "no" then...

UD

P.S. If some less aggravacious member would point me at the FAQ I would be pleased to read it before incurring anyone else's wrath with an inappropriate posting. I was pleased to find this group - never crossed my mind in 13 years of USENET use to search for "whisky" before believe it or not...

This is a public forum. You need to neither seek nor receive permission to post anything. I, for one, don't mind seeing posts such as yours here. It certainly doesn't get in the way of the whole 5 other posts made each day. If someone doesn't like your on-topic post, they can kill file you.

And likewise, if I don't like spammers, I'm equally entitled to post my view. I've seen groups destroyed when they tolerate spam.

See

Je ne suis pas "spammer" as I only posted to one ng. I would have thought with an address like yours you'd know what a spammer is ;-) You could try "troll" but then of course by answering my posting (which wasn't a troll as you're aware) you broke an even more sacred law. You're quite right about the danger of spam to newsgroups, I've seen it too but - happily - the noise seems to be dieing back to pre-web levels on the newsgroups I frequent and USENET is almost a nice place to be again.

Maybe you could try being more welcoming to newbies? Maybe we could talk about whisky?! I don't drink it very often nowadays as it doesn't seem to agree with me but I still have my memories :-)

Cheers

UD

I don't follow obfuscated URLs. Especially not from spammers.

Yes, yes, of course, the typical "It's not spam because some web page has a definition which exludes my particular type of spam" defense. Do you people have a book with standard excuses, or what?

The only person calling you a troll, is you.

Sorry, but you can't assign a (wrong) point of view to my post and then tell me why I'm wrong for making it, because I never made that point.

Except for the spammers who just don't get it.

Maybe if you had asked rather than doing the classic "Is it OK to post this ad, here it is" tactic, the reception would have been very different. Most people learn that a "Is it OK if I do thing (after having done it)" tactic doesn't fly, rather early in their life.

Some people apparently never grow out of that, or a "it's not my fault" mentality.

You can do whatever you want, as long as you don't attempt to speak for me or anyone else. Your views are your own and you don't set NG policy. The only thing that is indisputable is that the original post was NOT spam.

Certainly wasn't according to any of the currently used definitions.

Leaving that aside, and assuming anyone else is still reading this thread ;-) have you tried the Arran? I haven't actually tasted the commercially available malt and have rarely seen it for sale, though the Founder's Reserve is a nice, somewhat unassuming, tipple. I used to prefer my whisky to smack me in the mouth by way of introduction before attempting to sandpaper my throat, but I find Arran suits my more mellow self ;-)

Cheers

UD

I've never tried it, and, to be honest, I haven't heard great things (for whatever that is worth). I'd be hesitant to buy a full bottle just to try it, but if I saw it at a bar I'd give it a whirl.

Wrong again. Obviously it's _not_ indisputable. And, obviously, it _is_ spam.

Oh? What was the first time?

Obviously not. Wikipedia defines spam as unsolicited or undesired bulk electronic messages. The OP was not a bulk message, nor was it undesired by everyone. How do you define spam?

I think I've made my point of view abundantly clear.

Sure, there may be wikipedia editors who are more tolerant of spam than others, who insist on there being more than (n) number over (t) time messages to (p) number of places. For every spam-tolerant definition of spam, there are others which treat it as black and white - a commercial message where it doesn't belong, is spam.

Not to mention - wikipedia can be edited by anyone, to say anything. You do know that, right?

The guy's approach, even you must admit, was piss-poor from the start. "I don't know the situation in this group, and I don't care, so screw you here's my ad anyway". Did you at least see _that_ aspect of his post? If not, there's no point in continuing this little side conversation.

So if one person says it's OK to spam the group, then it should be OK? That's insane. On-topic doesn't make it not-spam.

Geez, wish we had near this much traffic actually concerning whisky. Maybe this nastiness is why the real whisky mavens up and left for greener pastures??

No, you haven't

Well, link one then. Whether or not the OP belongs here is exactly what is being contended.

Wikipedia not good enough? Try this one then:

So was yours.

It doesn't bother me because there is no "situation" in this group. Except the one you are trying to create.

It's still not spam, no matter how many times you say it. And just because one person says his message is out-of-line does not make it so either. Get it?

Of the OP, yes. Still don't see how that answers SW's question?

A couple of things:

1. I've been reading this group for some time and I don't recall ever seeing a FAQ or any direction on what is or isn't OK. The OP looked and didn't find one and then posted a single message to this group. If there had been an anti-selling policy and he still went ahead then I'd agree with you - but there isn't.

1. You still haven't given us your superior definition of spam.

2. This is the only live thread, it's not like we're having to wade through heaps of s**te to get to the stuff we want to read.

1. Re "Most people learn that a "Is it OK if I do thing (after having done it)" tactic doesn't fly, rather early in their life." I know a great many people in many contexts who find the "it's easier to get forgiveness than permission" policy an effective strategy - and I don't personally know any spammers.

2. Re "See
   formatting link
   --- I don't follow obfuscated URLs. Especially not from spammers." It was pretty obvious that the OP was defending his position in a reasoned sort of way and not trying to direct you to something harmful.

I find your self-righteous stance much less palitable than the OP's offer of sale.

Try some Preparation H.

If you've read any of my previous posts you'll know I'm not blessed with a discerning palate. However, I tried to expressions of the Arran a couple of years ago at a "Whisky Live" event. I found the chill filtered to be crisp, clean, sweet, smooth and gave it 70%. The NCF I tasted seemed spicier and less smooth and scored a 60%.

Considering that most of the maltisti rate NCF, you get an idea of how unsophisticated I am - but I would buy the CF variety at the right price. However, while supermarkets sell better (IMHO) whiskies for less, that day is probably a way off.

You, sir, have been inappropriately named.

Then your reading comprehension is poor.

The OP is welcome here. His advertisement, especially with a "Can I do this? I don't care, I'm doing it anyway" introduction, is the problem.

I'm not interested in playing dualling links with yoyu, sorry.

Then feel free to killfile me.

I'm not the one who spammed the group.

Yeah, I quite clearly understand that you're wrong, no worries there.

Why are you defending this spammer so vehemently, I wonder?