An apology

Kris Baker wrote:
> news:WradncDhxeQsSq3ZRVnyhQ@brightview.com...
> Please (also) apologize in the other non-commercial groups
> you spammed. Clever titles, "trying to be helpful" don't
> make it NOT spam.
>
> Kris

Kris Baker, you are a miserable wretch.
 >> Stay informed about: An apology 

Kris Baker wrote:
> "UKBookWorld" <clique RemoveThis @globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:WradncDhxeQsSq3ZRVnyhQ@brightview.com...
> > In the last few days, I've posted a couple of "FS: Books for sale"
> > listings to this newsgroup thinking, inaccurately, that commercial
> > postings were acceptable.
> >
> > Please accept my unreserved apologies.
> >
> > Michael Cole,
> > York, UK.
>
> Please (also) apologize in the other non-commercial groups
> you spammed. Clever titles, "trying to be helpful" don't
> make it NOT spam.
>
> Kris


Ooh, get a load of her!

You're like Hedges from 'Dad's Army'. He was a pompous little dictator
too.
 >> Stay informed about: An apology 

"UKBookWorld" <clique.DeleteThis@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:WradncDhxeQsSq3ZRVnyhQ@brightview.com...
> In the last few days, I've posted a couple of "FS: Books for sale"
> listings to this newsgroup thinking, inaccurately, that commercial
> postings were acceptable.
>
> Please accept my unreserved apologies.
>
> Michael Cole,
> York, UK.

Please (also) apologize in the other non-commercial groups
you spammed. Clever titles, "trying to be helpful" don't
make it NOT spam.

Kris
 >> Stay informed about: An apology 

<Giltedge04.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1144078461.614750.65490@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Kris Baker wrote:
>
> > Please (also) apologize in the other non-commercial groups
> > you spammed. Clever titles, "trying to be helpful" don't
> > make it NOT spam.
> >
> > Kris
>
> Just lighten up will you, his apology is genuine and treat
it as such.

....

As a matter of interest, how is anyone to tell that the apology
is genuine, and wasn't automatically generated. As were the
original spam postings ?

Maybe the apology generator is part of the package as well ?

Mr Cole posted to this NewsGroup before in Nov in response
to a "Sites for listing books" thread. And so it can be assumed
that he keeps an ocassional eye on the group and is reasonably
well acquainted with what's acceptable. And what isn't.
Although that posting again was a purely commercial effort,
if more on topic to that particular thread.

He didn't spam once, but twice. Which means he can't be bothered to
take sufficient interest in the NewsGroup to read it sufficiently
often, if at all, to judge the reaction to his first spam. It must
also be assumd that he ignores emails. That's the real point.

IIRR it's also quite a while, since you yourself contributed
anything to the NewsGroup before today's post.



</quote>
_________________________________________________________________

Fri, Nov 4 2005 1:30 pm
Email: "Michael Cole" <cli....RemoveThis@globalnet.co.uk>
Groups: rec.collecting.books
Not yet ratedRating:
show options


If you're interested in old books available from UK booksellers you'll
find around 1.5 million on our site at www.ukbookworld.com with
direct links straight through to the booksellers involved.

Best wishes,


Michael Cole - UKBookWorld admin


______________________________________________________________________


<quote>

> He is a well known figure in UK book circles and has been publishing
> book price guides and CD Roms for many years.

....

He also likes children, and animals, and does lots of work for
Charideee.

....

>
> He made a genuine mistake for which he has now apologised so give it a
> rest and dont' always go for the jugular.
>
....

And if it was down to the likes of you, and him, and me, this
particular NewsGroup most probably wouldn't even exist at all.

However often you choose to post.



michael adams




> Stan
>
 >> Stay informed about: An apology 

"first editions" <mushro1 RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1144080990.847873.193930@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

> Kris Baker wrote:

> > news:WradncDhxeQsSq3ZRVnyhQ@brightview.com...
> > Please (also) apologize in the other non-commercial groups
> > you spammed. Clever titles, "trying to be helpful" don't
> > make it NOT spam.
> >
> > Kris
>
> Kris Baker, you are a miserable wretch.


And you are Rich Davies AICMFP


michael adams

SOTW "The Banks of the Ohio"

....









>
 >> Stay informed about: An apology 

"Shelf Space" <hauntedriver.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144095023.383896.81530@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> Kris Baker wrote:

> > "UKBookWorld" <clique.TakeThisOut@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:WradncDhxeQsSq3ZRVnyhQ@brightview.com...
> > > In the last few days, I've posted a couple of "FS: Books for sale"
> > > listings to this newsgroup thinking, inaccurately, that commercial
> > > postings were acceptable.
> > >
> > > Please accept my unreserved apologies.
> > >
> > > Michael Cole,
> > > York, UK.
> >
> > Please (also) apologize in the other non-commercial groups
> > you spammed. Clever titles, "trying to be helpful" don't
> > make it NOT spam.
> >
> > Kris
>
>
> Ooh, get a load of her!
>
> You're like Hedges from 'Dad's Army'. He was a pompous little
> dictator too.
>

....

Dear, oh dear, oh dear!

It was Hodges - not Hedges - who in his role as Chief Warden, was
the only person in any position to stand up To Captain Mainwaring's
dictatorial pretensions, as local OC of the Home Guard. You complete
and utter buffoon !

This had some basis in fact, as the Home Guard were responsible
for shooting more than one innocent civilian as a result of
simply "following orders". This created considerable public
resentment and disquiet in some quarters. Which for fairly
obvious reasons, wasn't widely publicised at the time.

The fact that you can be so spectacularly wrong about a popular,
and much repeated television programme such as "Dad's Army" Barker,
leads one to question the validity of your judgements, often given
at considerable length I might add, on rather more complex and esoteric
topics. i.e. That as suspected all along, they consist mainly of
tripe and hot air

Silly Boy Barker.




michael adams

....
 >> Stay informed about: An apology 

<Giltedge04.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1144078461.614750.65490@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Kris Baker wrote:
>
>> Please (also) apologize in the other non-commercial groups
>> you spammed. Clever titles, "trying to be helpful" don't
>> make it NOT spam.
>>
>> Kris
>
> Just lighten up will you, his apology is genuine and treat it as such.
> He is a well known figure in UK book circles and has been publishing
> book price guides and CD Roms for many years.
>
> He made a genuine mistake for which he has now apologised so give it a
> rest and dont' always go for the jugular.
>
> Stan

Gee, I didn't realize that this group's FAQs didn't apply to "well-known"
people.....and that their obvious spams to NON-book groups didn't
matter, because of that status.

Please post a list of permitted spammers..

Kris
 >> Stay informed about: An apology 

UKBookWorld wrote:
> In the last few days, I've posted a couple of "FS: Books for sale" listings
> to this newsgroup thinking, inaccurately, that commercial postings were
> acceptable.
>
> Please accept my unreserved apologies.

For the off-topic posting, I can forgive you.
What I have a harder time forgiving is the
fact that while you were presuming to set
yourself up as a net bookseller, you did not
seem to grasp the very basic fact that when
you are listing a book for sale, you ALWAYS
list the lastest copyright date, not the earliest
(which in the case of your listings, would have
been merely optional, if you chose to include
it). For instance, when you start
talking about selling "1984" as a "Signet
Classic" from 1950 or whenever, with a
$6.95 cover price, alarm bells start going
off in the minds of anyone in this forum
who knows anything at all about collecting
twentieth-century books. Do I have to
tell you again that your comment that
your edition is a "Signet Classic" with
a $6.95 cover price dates it several
decades later than the first Signet
paperback edition of that esteemed
novel, which in fact was published --
as I seem to recall -- in July, 1950.
Why the hell can't you people over
there LISTEN and CHECK YOUR
FACTS before posting? Now, some
carping loons (and, sadly, there are
more than one to be found right here
in our little newsgroup) might argue
that I have been hammering
away at a midge with a mallet,
considering the manner in which
I have responded at length about this
very serious affair of your posting.
Not at all. The sad truth is, even in the
big net bookselling venues, it is all too easy
to find listings with "descriptions" every
bit as amateurish and inaccurate as
yours. At any rate, I hope my
responses will provide you with a
very valuable learning experience.
Cheers

[memo from the upstairs office.
>
> Michael Cole,
> York, UK.
 >> Stay informed about: An apology 

Giltedge04 RemoveThis @aol.com wrote:
> Kris Baker wrote:
>
> > Please (also) apologize in the other non-commercial groups
> > you spammed. Clever titles, "trying to be helpful" don't
> > make it NOT spam.
> >
> > Kris
>
> Just lighten up will you, his apology is genuine and treat it as such.
> He is a well known figure in UK book circles and has been publishing
> book price guides and CD Roms for many years.

I think we must be talking about two
different people here. The original
post in no way seems to emanate
from the distinguished personage
you describe above. There are
several reasons for my concluding
that, but two of them are enough
to make my point:

--First, his proffered literary pontifications
were incredibly trite. They seemed to
be written at about the eighth-grade level.
They were, in fact, utterly devoid of
originality.

--Secondly, exactly how is it that a
"well-known figure in UK book circles"
would have, in his distinguihed
career, somehow overlooked the
very basic bookselling custom that
holds when one lists a book for sale,
one ALWAYS includes the LATEST
copyright? Just read that original
posting again. Why, good grief,
fellow, we have got a "1932
paperback edition" with a "$10
cover price" and a "$6.95 Signet
Classic" paperback of "1984"
from 1950, WHEN THE FACT IS THE
ORIGINAL "1984" SIGNET PAPERBACK
WAS NOT A SIGNET CLASSIC AND
IN FACT HAD NO PRICE AT ALL ON
THE COVER BECAUSE IT WAS
PUBLISHED IN A TIME WHEN
IT WAS CUSTOMARY FOR MASS-
MARKET PAPERBACKS TO
COST TWENTY-FIVE CENTS.

[memo from the ujpstairs office]
>
> He made a genuine mistake for which he has now apologised so give it a
> rest and dont' always go for the jugular.
>
> Stan
 >> Stay informed about: An apology 

Kris Baker wrote:
> <palmer.william.RemoveThis@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:1144205343.971353.267640@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Giltedge04.RemoveThis@aol.com wrote:
> >> Kris Baker wrote:
> >>
> >> > Please (also) apologize in the other non-commercial groups
> >> > you spammed. Clever titles, "trying to be helpful" don't
> >> > make it NOT spam.
> >> >
> >> > Kris
> >>
> >> Just lighten up will you, his apology is genuine and treat it as such.
> >> He is a well known figure in UK book circles and has been publishing
> >> book price guides and CD Roms for many years.
> >
> > I think we must be talking about two
> > different people here. The original
> > post in no way seems to emanate
> > from the distinguished personage
> > you describe above. There are
> > several reasons for my concluding
> > that, but two of them are enough
> > to make my point:
>
> There's another one: the ID in question has posted
> nothing *but* spam to Usenet, since 1996. Would
> that be the habit of the person being defended?
>
> He's also "apologized" to other groups...but kept
> on spamming.
>
> Kris
 >> Stay informed about: An apology 

Kris Baker wrote:
> <palmer.william RemoveThis @sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:1144205343.971353.267640@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Giltedge04 RemoveThis @aol.com wrote:
> >> Kris Baker wrote:
> >>
> >> > Please (also) apologize in the other non-commercial groups
> >> > you spammed. Clever titles, "trying to be helpful" don't
> >> > make it NOT spam.
> >> >
> >> > Kris
> >>
> >> Just lighten up will you, his apology is genuine and treat it as such.
> >> He is a well known figure in UK book circles and has been publishing
> >> book price guides and CD Roms for many years.
> >
> > I think we must be talking about two
> > different people here. The original
> > post in no way seems to emanate
> > from the distinguished personage
> > you describe above. There are
> > several reasons for my concluding
> > that, but two of them are enough
> > to make my point:
>
> There's another one: the ID in question has posted
> nothing *but* spam to Usenet, since 1996. Would
> that be the habit of the person being defended?
>
> He's also "apologized" to other groups...but kept
> on spamming.

Funny. Do I dectect more than
a bit of envy because my sincere
writing efforts have resulted in my
becoming one of the net's best
known writers? I did not achieve
that by "spamming," but by
entertaining, amusing and
informing readers with on-topic
articles, not with mean-spirited
attacks like your vicious
side-swipe.

If you can set your bundle
of horsefeathers aside for a moment,
I might remind you that we have a
very serious matter here.

We have a poster -- allegedly a
well-known figure in UK book circles --
who has been spamming an ad
around the net. On top of that,
the "ad" is incredibly amateurish.
The actual poster does not even
seem to realize that a very
rudimentary principle of listing
books for sale holds that the latest
copyright date is always included.
On top of that, readers of that
post are favored with "literary
sentiments" not quite worthy of
a "B" eighth-grade English student.

Now, it seems to me we have a
deepeingt mystery here. We could
be dealing a case of fraud, actkual or
attempted. Perhaps someone is
using the name of the "well-known
UK bookseller" to give readers a
false sense of confidence in the
solicitation. In fact, the more
I consider the matter, the more
inconceivable to me it becomes
that someone well-known in
UK book circles would be capable
of posting of any such shabby
come-on. The violation of basic
bookselling customs complemented
horribly, with the trite, purile literary
pontifications combine in sinister
fashion to demand that any
intelligent reader of this forum
suspect (if not CONCLUDE) that
something is terribly amiss about
that posting.

Taking vicious sideswipes at me for
pointing out glaring tell-tale signs
which other posters missed in
their sillly posted babble does not
alter the situation at all, and in
fact only makes Sideswiper
Kris look like a PEEVISH PEST driven
though envy to annoy others to get
attention -- in orther words, like a troll.

[memo from the upstairs office]
>
> Kris
 >> Stay informed about: An apology 

first editions wrote:
> Kris Baker wrote:
> > news:WradncDhxeQsSq3ZRVnyhQ@brightview.com...
> > Please (also) apologize in the other non-commercial groups
> > you spammed. Clever titles, "trying to be helpful" don't
> > make it NOT spam.
> >
> > Kris
>
> Kris Baker, you are a miserable wretch.

Some remarks simply possess
a ring of terrible truth and therefore
can only be allowed to stand or
be seconded. Still smarting from
a particularly vicious sideswipe
by the person in qustion, I will
go on record here as seconding
your highly astute observation.

[from the upstairs office]

[From the upstairs office.
 >> Stay informed about: An apology 

<palmer.william DeleteThis @sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1144205343.971353.267640@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>
> Giltedge04 DeleteThis @aol.com wrote:
>> Kris Baker wrote:
>>
>> > Please (also) apologize in the other non-commercial groups
>> > you spammed. Clever titles, "trying to be helpful" don't
>> > make it NOT spam.
>> >
>> > Kris
>>
>> Just lighten up will you, his apology is genuine and treat it as such.
>> He is a well known figure in UK book circles and has been publishing
>> book price guides and CD Roms for many years.
>
> I think we must be talking about two
> different people here. The original
> post in no way seems to emanate
> from the distinguished personage
> you describe above. There are
> several reasons for my concluding
> that, but two of them are enough
> to make my point:

There's another one: the ID in question has posted
nothing *but* spam to Usenet, since 1996. Would
that be the habit of the person being defended?

He's also "apologized" to other groups...but kept
on spamming.

Kris
 >> Stay informed about: An apology