Monty Python - Spam - [3:20]
David
SPAM! SPAM! SPAM! SPAM! SPAM! SPAM!
-
WiscoUsonIan
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:04 am
- Location: West of Madison, WI
note to the non-existent admins here: It's interesting with all the chatters here on a daily, even hourly, basis that one of us does not have the admin privileges to just keep this place spam free. Honestly it's not that hard to keep things clean. we're obviously fed up with the spam. Please just give some "Active" members privileges to do so.
Visit my blog:
http://www.UsonIanAutomatic.com
http://www.UsonIanAutomatic.com
-
Jeff Myers
- Posts: 1813
- Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:01 pm
- Location: Tulsa
- Contact:
SPAM, etc.
I want to thank the Conservancy for cleaning up the "Chat" and for seemingly appointing an administrator to oversee things. Kudos!
By the way, for anyone who wanders out to Minnesota, there is actuallly a SPAM Museum near the plant in Austin, MN.
By the way, for anyone who wanders out to Minnesota, there is actuallly a SPAM Museum near the plant in Austin, MN.
Unfortunately, the job looks to be an ongoing one. Another spammer or two have shown up this week -- and it's only Tuesday. Those whose English is sufficiently lacking (?) now resort to grabbing a short paragraph from some book or magazine to make it appear they have an interest in our subject. Sad.
I'd say we should resume ignoring such posts -- readily identifiable by a very low post count and a red linked signature -- and let our watchman do his thing on our behalf -- with our ongoing and sincere thanks ?
Stephen
I'd say we should resume ignoring such posts -- readily identifiable by a very low post count and a red linked signature -- and let our watchman do his thing on our behalf -- with our ongoing and sincere thanks ?
Stephen
By the way, a thread was started the other day by a student (?) asking a question about Wright drawings. I see that thread has disappeared. I had reached the opinion that this was not a spam message and was about to write some sort of response when I found the post missing.
If it's true that posters must wait for their second post before showing a (commercial) link, perhaps we could wait (except where the first post is an obvious fraud) for a second post before pulling the plug on someone ?
S
If it's true that posters must wait for their second post before showing a (commercial) link, perhaps we could wait (except where the first post is an obvious fraud) for a second post before pulling the plug on someone ?
S
In response to the last two posts:
1) Yes, please ignore all suspicious threads. We are taking these down, banning users and forbidding their IP addresses. (Also, thanks for the thanks).
2) We check all suspicious posts very carefully to ensure that what we are taking down is SPAM and not genuine. The post I believe you are looking for was not erased and is still current. It can be found: http://savewright.org/wright_chat/viewtopic.php?t=5068.
FYI, some other users have reported problems finding archived threads. I cannot say if this contributed to the (current) post not displaying on your machine but we will continue to look into.
1) Yes, please ignore all suspicious threads. We are taking these down, banning users and forbidding their IP addresses. (Also, thanks for the thanks).
2) We check all suspicious posts very carefully to ensure that what we are taking down is SPAM and not genuine. The post I believe you are looking for was not erased and is still current. It can be found: http://savewright.org/wright_chat/viewtopic.php?t=5068.
FYI, some other users have reported problems finding archived threads. I cannot say if this contributed to the (current) post not displaying on your machine but we will continue to look into.
Admin:
Thank you for all of your help in making this forum an even better place to come and participate in. Things have improved greatly already.
One option that folks here (myself included) have mentioned that would be very helpful would be the reinstitution of the 'private message' function. Do you know if that's in the works for a possible return?
Thanks again.
David
Thank you for all of your help in making this forum an even better place to come and participate in. Things have improved greatly already.
One option that folks here (myself included) have mentioned that would be very helpful would be the reinstitution of the 'private message' function. Do you know if that's in the works for a possible return?
Thanks again.
David