Hey Seinfeld fans, go see ID4!

I encourage everyone here who is an American to celebate the American way: MOVIEGOING! As many of you know, Independence Day (the movie) is coming, so let's make it the highest grossing film of all time.

I encourage everyone regardless of nationality to STOP SPAMMING! Are you related to one of the filmmakers, or are you simply following orders from the voices in your head?

I just like this movie okay, I'm not endorsing it.

If you just "like this movie okay", and you're "not endorsing it", then why on earth do you want to make it the highest-grossing film of all time? Seems like you'd want to reserve that distinction for something better.

Mitchell Virchick writes:

(Justin Tribble) writes:

I just like this movie okay, I'm not endorsing it.

then why on earth do you want to make it the highest-grossing film of all time? Seems like you'd want to reserve that distinction for something better.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Easy... Down boy... The guy just got a little over zealous.

But damn it Justin, if you're going to do that, write the WHOLE address... ID4? what the hell is that? How is your Uncle Mike going to capitalize on his movie if you can't get the address right! ;)

-Dennis

It's "Independence Day", the movie!! Geezzz Dennis.

David Marsh wrote:

I'd encourage you to find out what spamming is before you go accusing somebody of it.

Monty

If you ask the net-abuse admin groups, they'll tell you that the precise meaning of "spam" is an off-topic posting to a newsgroup. (For example, say, posting a message about breaking box-office records for an upcoming action film to a newsgroup about a TV sitcom.) "Spam" has since been stretched and distorted to refer to all manner of cross-posting, commercial come-ons and scams, junk e-mail, and so forth.

But perhaps you know something the net admins don't. If so share your wisdom. (Other than by pointing out that this message itself is therefore spam, because so was yours.)

Monty D. Martin wrote:

David Marsh wrote:

Everything I read about the internet before I ever went online, including "Zen and the Art of the Internet" and "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Internet", defined a spam as a heavily cross-posted article. I have never heard of an off-topic post like this being called a spam in three years on the net. I have heard people refer to any advertising as spam whether it was cross-posted or not, but I wrote them off as newbies who were misapplying the term. Perhaps the meaning has changed over the years, but I wouldn't characterize it as distortion, rather as the dynamic nature of language.

Just to ease my own mind, I read news.admin.net-abuse.misc for about three hours. 99.9% of the usage of the word spam refered to heavily cross-posted articles. The fact that these articles were also off-topic is pretty much a given, but it was mentioned in only a few instances. I certainly doubt that newsadmins have the time or the inclination to cancel or even concern themselves with single off-topic articles posted to just one group. Therefore, I fail to see any significant reason to define such posts as spam, from a practicle stand point. Purists may still define spam as ANY off-topic post, however, the vast majority of Usenet users and newsadmins use the term most often to refer to heavily cross-posted articles.

Monty

:

<snip> Stop, you're both wrong. An off-topic posting is an off-topic posting. A heavily cross-posted article is a heavily cross-posted article.

A Spam, now, is the same article posted _separately_ to many newsgroups. I'm not sure if there is a set number of separate postings that qualifies as an "official" spam, but the number 20 comes to mind. That is, you post the article 20 times, each time to a different ng.

Sheldon Scott wrote:

Well this is an interesting (if off-topic!) discussion. But Sheldon, you neglect to cite the source for your definition. I prefer Monty's argument (should be reference 5 above). Apparently "spam" has come to mean "heavy cross-posting" most often for most people. So let me rephrase my original flame: "These off-topic postings are making me THIRSTY!"

David Marsh ([email]) wrote: <snip off-topic stuff except:H>

Check out news.admin.net-abuse.misc for the facts. If most people call a cow a sheep, does that make it so? Not that there's anything wrong with that...

In article , [email] (Sheldon Scott) says:

I think I should put that in my .sig, if I figure out how to make one.

...

I don't think you have to worry Justin, I haven't been this excited about a movie since The Empire Strikes Back came out in 1980. I plan to be there for the opening tomorrow night, and I have the feeling that Jurassic Park's reign atop the box office throne is going to be a short lived one!

Does anyone know why peopel call it "ID4"? Why the "4"?

Maybe because Independence Day is on the 4th

No don't go...Senfield fans are an intellectual lot and they expect more then inane, tierd and cliched plots! I know the sequel title

IDSUX:ET Gets to Kick Some Butt

[email] (Michael dav9es) wrote:

Tony Riela wrote:

David Marsh wrote:

I saw it last night and wished it had been based on better IDas.

That's the only theory I've come up for it, as well, but it still doesn't make any sense. Why just "ID4", if they're making a reference to the date? If that *is* their reasoning, shouldn't it be something like ID7/4? IDJuly4?

Another story I've heard (but I've pretty much classified it in my "urban legends" file already) is that the studio wanted to join the "Internet Advertising" bandwagon that is becoming more and more popular with new movie releases. But, when they tried to get a website address, "www.id.com" was already taken (I never did verify this) and so they tacked on the "4", for the very reason we're theorizing here, and came up with "www.id4.com", which *is* the website for the movie ads.

So, maybe the question is, which came first, the website or the movie title?

Doug

On 12 Jul 1996, Michael dav9es wrote:

my guess is that its on july 4th. :)

[email] (Michael dav9es) wrote:

I guess I must have missed the first 3 "Independence Days". Along with the first 9 "Malcolm" movies.

Thank you. Best answer to this omnipresent question that I've seen. (By the way, you really should check out "Malcolm VIII" -- it's the best one.)

--Michael

On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, RFerrie wrote:

I also missed the first 12 "Apollo" movies.

Jer

Fairall Dennis wrote:

OTOH I hear that "One" through "Six" weren't nearly as good as "Seven."

Actually, yes, our (America's) Independence Day is July 4 but in my mind, ID4 is redundant inasmuch as a literal translation would be "July 4 4."

In article , [email] wrote:

What happens if there's an Independence Day 2? Will it be ID4-2??

In [email] (Steve Lapommeray) writes:

mind,

4."

THERE IS GONNA BE A INDEPENDENCE DAY PART 2!!!!! I dont know what it'll be called though.

k.bc.ca: Distribution:

Dave, You mean first 23 Malcolm movies don't you?

I missed "Slaughterhouse(s) 1 thru 4" and "The Dirty 11, 10, 9, .." I also missed the sequel, "The Dirty Baker's Dozen".

Joe

On Tue, 16 Jul 1996, Doug Fields wrote:

http://www.id.com/ is the Intrinsic Development Corporation.