Re: Idiot spam attack on sci.lang

In message <4ce573b7-b6ba-488b-a627-3dc25443540d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Franz Gnaedinger <frgn@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
On Jan 25, 11:58 am, "benli...@xxxxxxxxxx" <benli...@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

He _is_ the real problem. However obnoxious J-Doc may be, at his worst
he does not produce one tenth of the volume that the sporger has
displayed today and before. And he usually capitalizes his subject
lines to make them easier to ignore. The cranks were here when I
arrived, and I take them as part of the scene. I know Franz, I know Du!
an, etc, and I can happily ignore their threads most of the time.

Your calling me a crank is an ad hominem. As long
as you can't falsify my approach to early language

That's because it's unfalsifiable. What does that tell you about your "approach", considered as a scientific theory?

- you and all the other edus with all your universities
and libraries and publications and connections to
scholars in your background -, as long I am entitled
to go on with my experiment.

Has anybody suggested otherwise?

As for Google: they allow criminals to use my name
and Google identity and fill my Google account

What is a "Google account", and how do you "fill" it?

with
bizarre stuff that appears under my name. So they
have a security problem and are a part of the present
mess.

Usenet in general uses protocols that have no security. How is that specifically Google's problem?

--
Richard Herring
.