[SpamCop-List] Re: SC Parser misses URLs w/ bogus embedded HTML tags

[Mike Easter]

Spam Hater wrote:
> First up, where do you see an argument???

'We' were explaining to Thomas that there wasn't a way that he could
change the spam's body content so that in the item being discussed,
namely

spamcop.net/sc?id=z698535436z3e5e148442ca867247174028607d3131z

that the 'missing' link which he knows about from rendering, namely

http://211.158.15.61/vb/

could be 'spamcop reported' in response to his original question:

Thomas Bean wrote:
> Is there any way to get SC to report
> these sites without munging the message text (which is against SC
> rules)?

The very /first/ thing you said in a topposted reply to that above post
of his was this:

Spam Hater wrote:
> Where did you see a rule that says munging the message text is
> forbidden??

Which definitely looks like a discussion or disagreement with what he
said.

You are now trying to say that you weren't rebutting what he said, but
starting a different subthread within the original thread in which your
subthread is /really/ about mungeing or removing references to your own
name or address.

If you would post inline so that your remarks are directly underneath
exactly what you are talking about, neither you nor the other posters
who try to engage in a conversation with your and others will be
confused.

I think you got confused earlier because a thought came into your head
and then you wanted to type it, and what you were typing and talking
about wasn't the same thing as the rest of us were talking about.  That
is a very common problem with topposting and not trimming and
contextualizing.

If you want to say that I'm confused and you aren't, that's all right
with me too;  but in either case, topposting is contributing to the
confusion condition.


-- 
Mike Easter
kibitzer, not SC admin