In article <cl9a3v$1ri$1@grandcanyon.binc.net>
Chuck Dillon <spam@nimblegen.com> wrote:
>
> Jim Brock wrote: 
>
> By what definition?  I can think of two definitions for spam.  1)
> multiple posting of off-topic information to an unnecessarily large set
> of unrelated forums.  2) Unsoliticed email.
>
> He's done neither.  He provided a valid, and potentially useful,
> response to a request (i.e. solicited) for information.
> 
>
> You can't be serious, ROTFLMAO...
>
> You've got your own definition of morality as well as spam it appears.
>


Yawn.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]