On Saturday, September 17, 2022 at 12:36:36 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Friday, September 16, 2022 at 4:37:02 AM UTC-4, Spam-I-Am wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 15, 2022 at 10:44:06 PM UTC-4, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > On 2022-09-14 10:29 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 8:02:56 PM UTC-4,
> > > george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > >> On 2022-09-14 3:50 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > >>> On Wednesday, September 14, 2022 at 12:43:35 PM UTC-4,
> > > george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > >>>> On 2022-09-13 7:59 p.m., Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Tuesday, September 13, 2022 at 7:01:26 PM UTC-4,
> > > george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > >>>>>> I don't want to dox the guy, but I see Corey's already done
> > > that. So,
> > > >>>>>> first: it's about this "Mohit Mis--" who'd published a chapbook
> > > and was
> > > >>>>>> spamming ads for it all over usenet, including groups where he
> > > was being
> > > >>>>>> begged and flamed to stop.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> So I spent a month doing some kook-busting. I wrote this poem as
> > > a copy
> > > >>>>>> of his style. Then I began daily searching usenet for his spam
> > > (in those
> > > >>>>>> days, it was possible to search usenet, not just one group, using
> > > >>>>>> google), and post my poem as a reply to his ads. It did put an
> > > end to
> > > >>>>>> them, and a few people thanked me for it.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Second: it went into the April section of "Doggerel," which you may
> > > >>>>>> remember me talking about posting into aapc this year. That's
> > > been a bit
> > > >>>>>> derailed, and I welcome the chance to get back to it.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Third: this was a good way to get back to the above project, due
> > > to the
> > > >>>>>> ongoing discussion of how and when to use the word "Alas" making it
> > > >>>>>> suddenly relevant. Notice how my use tells the reader, right up
> > > front,
> > > >>>>>> that it's a comic poem.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Pity you couldn't have a adopted a similar tack with regard to
> > > Will Donkey's spam.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> I've never seen any evidence of Will advertising his book on other
> > > than
> > > >>>> groups he was already posting on.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> That's good, because I was referring to *this* group.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> You'll note that you'd said: "spamming ads for it all over usenet,
> > > including groups where he was being
> > > >>> begged and flamed to stop."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> That fits Will Donkey and AAPC to a "T".
> > > >> Like hell it does. Posting, or even "spamming", to one group (that one's
> > > >> already on) is not spamming "all over Usenet", and you know it.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know any such thing, George. You haven't defined what "all
> > > over usenet" means. How many usenet groups constitute "all over"?>
> > >
> > > Oh, you want to start (over) with definitions. Great idea. Let's start
> > > with the definition of "spamming usenet". The Current Usenet spam
> > > thresholds and guidelines (posted here in March define it as posting a
> > > "substantively identical" message to an "excessive" number of groups.
> > > The latter is measured by the Breidbart Index, or BI (the sum of the
> > > square roots of the number of groups to which each post was made).
> > > For example, 2 posts of the same message (one crossposted to 9 groups,
> > > and one to 4) have a BI of 5, while posting it separately to the same 13
> > > groups would have a BI of 13. A message with a BI of more than 20 in a
> > > 45-day period is cancellable spam.
> > >
> > > As for "all over usenet", I'll stick with the standard usage:
> > > "1: over the whole extent
> > > decorated all over with a flower pattern
> > > 2: EVERYWHERE
> > > looked all over for the book"
> > > https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allover
> > >
> > > Here's the data:
> > > https://groups.google.com/search/conversations?q=%22Ponder%20Awhile%22
> > >
> > > If you have trouble with the definitions, you're of course welcome to
> > > offer your own.
> > >
> > > > How many usenet groups has Will Donkey spammed it to?
> > >
> > > Since you haven't shown yet that Will has done any spamming (exceeded
> > > the BI), you're begging the question.
> > >
> > > > I fully suspect that he's spammed it to a dozen or more usenet groups.
> > >
> > > > And whether he's spammed it to groups that he's already a member of
> > > is irrelevant. You did not specify that Mohit spammed it to groups
> > > where he wasn't already a member. You only said that he spammed it to
> > > groups after they'd begged him to stop.
> > >
> > > I don't think it's irrelevant to point it out at all. There's a
> > > difference between promoting something on the groups you already post
> > > to, and posting about it on groups you've never posted to before or
> > > since. As I said, though, it is a side issue; once you've shown that
> > > Will did any "spamming," we can talk about that.
> > > > The Donkey has spammed his book to AAPC dozens of times, even though
> > > he's been asked to stop, told to stop, and reported to Google for spamming.
> > > Oh, I'm sure Will has posted more than 25 OPs on his book to aapc in the
> > > past 3 years. If he's posted the same message to aapc more than 20 times
> > > in 45 days, that could be considered spamming, but I doubt he has. (You
> > > cannot count different posts with the same message in the backthread, of
> > > course; or different messages with the same sig line.)
> > > >
> > > >>> I doubt that you actually have any,
> > > >>>> but I'll point out the onus is on you to show some if you expect to be
> > > >>>> believed.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I have ample proof to support what I'd actually claimed.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>>>> Oh... that's right... you published it.
> > > >>>> I sure did. That's why your libelling of Will in this respect concerns
> > > >>>> me, because you're also libelling me.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Actually, I would be "libeling" you (sp) -- if such were, in fact,
> > > the case.
> > > >> "libel verb
> > > >> li·​bel | \ ˈlī-bəl \
> > > >> libeled or libelled; libeling or libelling\ ˈlī-​b(ə-​)liŋ \"
> > > >> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libelling
> > > >>
> > > >> Next time check it out the spelling of a word before trying a spelling
> > > >> lame. Just a thought.
> > > >
> > > > Doubling "l"s is tres passé.
> > > >>> However since I'd only implied that 1) Will spams AAPC with ads for
> > > his book, and that
> > > >> No, you "implied" that Will was "spamming all over usenet" just like
> > > >> the kook who inspired my poem.
> > > > As previously noted, I highly doubt that the Donkey has limited his
> > > spam to one group.
> > > > Let's see... an archive search for "selected poems 1976-2019" turns
> > > up 6,576 results. That's a shipload of spam by anyone's standards.
> > >
> > > Oh, indeed: 6,576 copies of the same post is a lot of posts. But you
> > > haven't shown that all 6,000+ are substantively the same, or even looked
> > > at the content. Some of them are replies by Will in threads where the
> > > book is being discussed; some are replies by him where the book is
> > > mentioned only in the backthread; in some he uses the book title and
> > > url as a sig line; and some weren't even written by him.
> > >
> > > > The archives also show that he's spammed it to alt.poetry,
> > > alt.arts.poetry, rec.arts.poems, rec.music.beatles, -- and that's just
> > > from the 240 most recent posts.
> > >
> > > According to my own searches, since October 2019 (when the book came out):
> > >
> > > - Will has made 7 posts to rec.arts.poems containing the phrase
> > > "selected poems":
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/rec.arts.poems/search?q=%22selected%20poems%22%20author%3Awill%20author%3Adockery&hl=en
> > >
> > > - He made one post to alt.poetry containing the words "selected poems"
> > > in that time:
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.poetry/search?q=selected%20poems%20author%3AWill%20author%3ADockery
> > >
> > > - He also made one post using those words on rec.music.beatles (not the
> > > same post as the one to a.p):
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/rec.music.beatles/search?q=Selected%20Poems%20author%3AWill%20author%3ADockery
> > >
> > >
> > > - and he has made zero posts to alt.arts.poetry that used that phrase
> > > since 2015:
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry/search?q=Selected%20Poems%20author%3AWill%20author%3ADockery" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry/search?q=Selected%20Poems%20author%3AWill%20author%3ADockery
> > > Your search probably captured the one post I made to aap that used the
> > > phrase:
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry/search?q=Selected%20Poems )
> > > >> You may have learned something. (Two, counting my advice on making
> > > >> spelling lames.)
> > > >> 2) you were the schnook who published it for him, both of my claims are
> > > >> readily substantiated.
> > > >>>
> > > >> Of course I published Will's book. Stop whinging about it.
> > > >
> > > > Need I remind you that you are the one claiming to have been libeled
> > > (i.e., whining).
> > >
> > > You made a false accusation with mali
> Actually, cious intent -- since we're on
> > > definitions today, I'll remind you that's the definition of libel.
> > >
> > > > You have yet to show any proof to back up your statement.
> > >
> > > Michael, we're not in court. We're on aapc (where, according to you, if
> > > you accuse someone of making a false accusation you don't have to prove
> > > it, remember?).
> > >
> > > > In fact, your *only* argument was that your original statement about
> > > Mohit (which I subsequently applied to Will) implied that he'd spam
> > > posted to an undisclosed number of usenet groups, whereas Will had only
> > > spammed a single group.
> > >
> > > No, I did not argue that Will had "only spammed a single group".
> > >
> > > > While that would hardly count for libel even if it were true, that
> > > simply is not the case. Will spammed it to at least 5 usenet groups (in
> > > a total of 6,576 posts).
> > >
> > > > You sir, stand corrected.
> > >
> > > You have shown that there have been a lot of posts about the book on
> > > aapc. That's all you've shown so far.
> > Arguing about whether or not the book has been excessively promoted doesn’t promote the book well.
> Actually, I haven't promoted the book quite enough.
>
> Stay tuned.
>
> 🙂

Promote all you want. It won’t help. You’re doing it all wrong.