A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

B&H, Why All The SPAM???



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 8th 06, 09:32 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill Funk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,500
Default B&H, Why All The SPAM???

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 18:18:16 GMT, Rick Sciacca
wrote:

On 12/8/06 11:22 AM, "Paul Allen" wrote:

If you give a man a fish he eats for a day. But if you teach a man to
fish...

A better answer to Rick's question is

http://www.google.com

Paul Allen


Like I haven't heard about Goggle, dumbass. Technically there was no better
answer. He answered my question directly instead of giving me a search
engine, which completely failed to answer the question. I guess by your
reasoning, no one should EVER post a question here, as they can just search
Google for it?

-- Rick


How did Google fail to answer the question?
I Googled "B&H" and got the same link ASAAR offered, top of the list.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
  #12  
Old December 8th 06, 09:54 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
ASAAR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,057
Default B&H, Why All The SPAM???

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 13:30:33 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

I Googled "B&H" and B&H Photo Video was the first on the list.
Google offered the same clue you did. A click on your link, and the
link Google provided, would go to the same place.


Right, I wasn't disputing that. But it takes me no longer to type
B&H's URL than it would to make a slightly insulting reference to
google, which at best will provide the same information indirectly,
with always the possibility that it won't. I also added the
conditions where referencing google would be appropriate. Why go
out of your way to risk appearing as a jerk ("I'm not going to tell
you. Look it up yourself") when it's no more trouble to be helpful?
As I indicated, there's a time and place for suggesting google, such
as when someone's continual RFIs become excessive.

  #13  
Old December 9th 06, 06:34 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Fishface
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default B&H, Why All The SPAM???

dwight wrote:
I have one, and, yes, it certainly generates a fair share of the spam I
receive. That's why I had to invoke privacy in the WHOIS data and
my email address appears only as a graphic on the website. It is still
in the source code, but at least one level of harvesting has been cut off...


Pretty much, that's what they're looking at, anyway.
http://javascript.internet.com/page-...ermeasure.html
Javascript, though...


  #14  
Old December 9th 06, 04:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill Funk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,500
Default B&H, Why All The SPAM???

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:54:20 -0500, ASAAR wrote:

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 13:30:33 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

I Googled "B&H" and B&H Photo Video was the first on the list.
Google offered the same clue you did. A click on your link, and the
link Google provided, would go to the same place.


Right, I wasn't disputing that. But it takes me no longer to type
B&H's URL than it would to make a slightly insulting reference to
google, which at best will provide the same information indirectly,
with always the possibility that it won't. I also added the
conditions where referencing google would be appropriate. Why go
out of your way to risk appearing as a jerk ("I'm not going to tell
you. Look it up yourself") when it's no more trouble to be helpful?
As I indicated, there's a time and place for suggesting google, such
as when someone's continual RFIs become excessive.


Different strokes for different folks.
I'd rather teach someone to do it themselves (especially when it's so
easy) than to hand them one answer several times (your RFI
referrence).
I do see a lot of questions asked here that could be not only answered
more easily by using Google, but would be answered in far more depth
(and with far fewer just plain wrong answers).
Of course, I get a lot of chuckles with the wrong answers, too (even
mine, sometimes).
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
  #15  
Old December 9th 06, 08:04 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Paul Allen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 301
Default B&H, Why All The SPAM???

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 18:18:16 GMT
Rick Sciacca wrote:

On 12/8/06 11:22 AM, "Paul Allen"
wrote:

If you give a man a fish he eats for a day. But if you teach a man
to fish...

A better answer to Rick's question is

http://www.google.com

Paul Allen


Like I haven't heard about Goggle, dumbass.


Well! We're learning more and more about you, aren't we? Are you
sure you're presenting the image you want us to see?

Technically there was no
better answer. He answered my question directly instead of giving me
a search engine, which completely failed to answer the question.


At the surface, your query meant simply that you didn't know about B&H
Photo. At a deeper level, it suggested that you didn't know how to use
Google. Would you rather be given a fish or or the knowledge of how to
fish? Which gift is more helpful?

I
guess by your reasoning, no one should EVER post a question here, as
they can just search Google for it?


It's generally wise to reflect for a few minutes before replying to
a perceived slight. Adrenaline can make you say silly things.

Paul Allen


  #16  
Old December 10th 06, 03:02 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Paul J Gans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 719
Default B&H, Why All The SPAM???

Fishface ? wrote:
dwight wrote:
I have one, and, yes, it certainly generates a fair share of the spam I
receive. That's why I had to invoke privacy in the WHOIS data and
my email address appears only as a graphic on the website. It is still
in the source code, but at least one level of harvesting has been cut off...


Pretty much, that's what they're looking at, anyway.
http://javascript.internet.com/page-...ermeasure.html
Javascript, though...


It is a well-known trick which has been in use for some time.
Seems to work if you scatter the parts of the e-mail addy
around the web page.

--
--- Paul J. Gans
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Massive SPAM-up! Here's the SPAM David Harmon Digital Photography 1 May 13th 06 09:11 AM
Forged spam & 'spam' report. SPAM ALERT was FOR SALE- Prints of Original Images John McWilliams 35mm Photo Equipment 0 March 14th 06 06:48 AM
Forged spam & 'spam' report. SPAM ALERT was FOR SALE- Prints of Original Images John McWilliams Medium Format Photography Equipment 0 March 14th 06 06:48 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.