Hey Sue, I found you a job... {you really should get out, sitting indoors eating peanuts and car tyres is not good for your bingo wings}
* Job Title * PORK BONER LEP * YEV/21886
Location SOMERSET
Hours 40 HOURS OVER 5 DAYS
Wage £8.00 PER HOUR
Work Pattern Days
Closing Date 21/11/2009
Pension No details held
Duration PERMANENT ONLY
Description This Local Employment Partnership employer shares information about new starters with Jobcentre Plus for statistical purposes only. See www.dwp.gov.uk for more information.To be able to tunnel-bone a minimum of 100 pork legs in an 8 hour day to an agreed specification, which includes removing starfat, glands and gristles. To help the manufacturing team if requested and to be used to working in a quality meat factory environment.
How to apply For further details about job reference YEV/21886, please telephone Jobseeker Direct on 0845 6060 234. Lines are open 8.00am - 6.00pm weekdays, 9.00am - 1.00pm Saturday. All calls are charged at local rate. Call charges may be different if you call from a mobile phone. Alternatively, visit your local Jobcentre Plus Office and use the customer access phones provided to call Jobseeker Direct. The textphone service for deaf and hearing-impaired people is 0845 6055 255.
-- political correctness: The safety net protecting deaf blind disabled ethnic minority gays & lesbians with odd religious beliefs from reality
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:46:29 +0100, Michelle Sullivan
<michelle_s-n...@sorbs.net> wrote: >There are many other things I can say, I'm not going to. You know my >email, you're welcome to use it, it's up to you if you want to attack me >and .....
Ditto. I'm not attacking you - I'm telling you as your friend that you are sounding pretty nutty with your conspiracy theories. I'm telling you because I'm concerned about you and I'm sad to see you destroying what's left of your reputation by your spurious claims against good people. I don't think you're lying, either - I think you have a very skewed way of looking at things and it worries me.
DevilsPGD wrote: > In message <hdeujr$94...@nemesis.sorbs.net> Michelle Sullivan > <michelle_s-n...@sorbs.net> was claimed to have wrote:
>> Put a lawn mower on your front garden and your neighbors borrow it >> without asking.. yeah....
> If it has a FAQ that says "Q: Who can use this law mower. A: Anyone! > Feel free to use it!", you'd look awful silly in front of a judge > complaining that I used said mower.
You're forgetting that Iverson was told to he didn't have permission (any assumed or implied permission was officially and publicly revoked).. The judge would then look on it a lot differently.
I cannot (and do not) complain about him using the data/resources before I told him to stop. He refused to stop and indicated if I tried to stop him he would evade any blocks until I stopped legitimate users as well.
Sorry but no matter how you argue that one, the judge would not favour him in any way.
Back to the analogy.. You tell someone they are not permitted to use the lawn mower, and no matter how many signs are around saying that it's free to use, they cannot use it.
> He lied *and continues* to lie about me/SORBS. He also stole orignal > works from me and continues to do so, that makes him a thief. I don't > like liars and thieves.
You really sound nutty by calling Al an liar and thief. You don't have to wonder if people are stopping to use the SORBS.
Susan wrote: > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:46:29 +0100, Michelle Sullivan > <michelle_s-n...@sorbs.net> wrote:
>> There are many other things I can say, I'm not going to. You know my >> email, you're welcome to use it, it's up to you if you want to attack me >> and .....
> Ditto. I'm not attacking you - I'm telling you as your friend that you > are sounding pretty nutty with your conspiracy theories. I'm telling
That's not a conspiracy theory. I'm stating simple facts. A lie has been told, it has not been retracted, it has not been apologised for.. It is still being told publicly.
> you because I'm concerned about you and I'm sad to see you destroying > what's left of your reputation by your spurious claims against good
Pointing out the truth, continually cannot harm my reputation any more than has already been done by that lie. The fact that lie still exists and is still publicly being told is damaging to my reputation two years on.
I take great interest that the announcement that SORBS might close due to lack of hosting resulted in a statement telling people not to use SORBS. Further the following articles always prove an interesting read...
> people. I don't think you're lying, either - I think you have a very > skewed way of looking at things and it worries me.
I have a very clear way of thinking about things over time. I can be very quick to jump to conclusions (sometimes wrong ones) however, when I spend the time researching and calming down from attacks, it's amazing what I can find out. I also find out and collate a lot of detail.. 2 years is a very long time to watch, wait and collect. I think it's about time I had a public apology... I don't expect to get one, and I expect a lot of people here, whilst they would be surprised that I am telling the truth and always was, they will still have their minds made up and my reputation would not be restored by the revelation.
Claus v. Wolfhausen wrote: > Michelle Sullivan ranted about Al Iverson:
>> He lied *and continues* to lie about me/SORBS. He also stole orignal >> works from me and continues to do so, that makes him a thief. I don't >> like liars and thieves.
> You really sound nutty by calling Al an liar and thief. You don't have > to wonder if people are stopping to use the SORBS.
I know, I know, come to NANAE and tell the truth.. that's being nutty because we all know everyone lies here... don't they Claus.
Michelle Sullivan <michelle_s-n...@sorbs.net> writes: >Umm .. PV really committed libel there... he knows it which is why he's >replied on the offensive with "You admitted it".. I never admitted any
Here's an idea, take your cartooney threats and shove them up whatever parts of your body are original equipment. * -- * PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something like corkscrews.
Michelle Sullivan <michelle_s-n...@sorbs.net> writes: >I know, you've always thought that, but it's amusing that I can reply to >you through all the thread politely and with the same information, yet >you keep throwing insults, changing stuff, relying on hearsay etc...
Polite? You called Huey an idiot.
You are seriously delusional. Seek help. * -- * PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something like corkscrews.
Michelle Sullivan <michelle_s-n...@sorbs.net> writes: >DNSBL.com's query servers in July, 2007". You'll also note that over 2 >years later and that text is still there and still on the same "page of >authority" about the accuracy of SORBS.
"You'll also note" - we pointed it out to YOU, upthread. Do you actually remember what you type, or did you have your short term memory removed? * -- * PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something like corkscrews.
Michelle Sullivan <michelle_s-n...@sorbs.net> writes: >> you do, and then to claim you're going to sue Paul V? You've lost it,
>I didn't claim anything... I told him quite clearly he has libeled me, >and he can put up or shut up... and what did he do? He shut up.
If "finished reading news for a day and just now saw more of your shit" is "shutting up", go ahead and declare victory, dickless. * -- * PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something like corkscrews.
v...@calcite.rhyolite.com (Vernon Schryver) writes: >I think Michelle Sullivan removed a bunch marginal or dubious entries >from the combined SORBS DNSBL that Michelle Sullivan also insisted >that Al Iverson should never have measured because it has too many >false positives.
Since a number of lists saw that data and did heavy cleanup, I think this is the most likely explanation, and I withdraw my comment that Michelle is poisoning queries. Note to Michele though - I'm not the one who originated the claim in the first place. If you're gonna sue someone (which would be really, really stupid) you might want to aim straight.
I have to also give Claus credit here - UCEPROTECT looks a hell of a lot better than it did back when I was hassling him about it being a useless blocklist a couple years ago, and I have to admit that I haven't looked at any stats on his list since that time. It's a class move to see critical data like Al's posted, and do something about it instead of simply complaining. * -- * PV Something like badgers, something like lizards, and something like corkscrews.
In message <hdhper$5k...@nemesis.sorbs.net> Michelle Sullivan <michelle_s-n...@sorbs.net> was claimed to have wrote:
>DevilsPGD wrote: >> In message <hdeujr$94...@nemesis.sorbs.net> Michelle Sullivan >> <michelle_s-n...@sorbs.net> was claimed to have wrote:
>>> Put a lawn mower on your front garden and your neighbors borrow it >>> without asking.. yeah....
>> If it has a FAQ that says "Q: Who can use this law mower. A: Anyone! >> Feel free to use it!", you'd look awful silly in front of a judge >> complaining that I used said mower.
>You're forgetting that Iverson was told to he didn't have permission >(any assumed or implied permission was officially and publicly >revoked).. The judge would then look on it a lot differently.
Not if he then reviewed the FAQ and found that, as a member of "anyone" he was welcome to use it.
If the FAQ said "unless permission has been otherwise revoked, anyone can use SORBS" then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
>I cannot (and do not) complain about him using the data/resources before >I told him to stop. He refused to stop and indicated if I tried to stop >him he would evade any blocks until I stopped legitimate users as well.
>Sorry but no matter how you argue that one, the judge would not favour >him in any way.
>Back to the analogy.. You tell someone they are not permitted to use the >lawn mower, and no matter how many signs are around saying that it's >free to use, they cannot use it.
So if you tell them they can use it, tell them they can't, then tell them they can, are they allowed to use it or not?
Michelle Sullivan <michelle_s-n...@sorbs.net> wrote: > huey.calli...@gmail.com wrote: > > Michelle Sullivan <michelle_s-n...@sorbs.net> wrote: > >> huey.calli...@gmail.com wrote: > >>> That's it: I think we've seen enough evidence to conclude that > >>> you're either very stupid, completely insane, or both. > >> Umm .. PV really committed libel there... he knows it which is why > >> he's replied on the offensive with "You admitted it".. I never > >> admitted any such thing. He made a direct acusation that SORBS/I > >> faked results to twist stats. There has never been *any* evidence > >> of that (because it didn't happen) > > There has. It's been pointed out in this thread. (because it did). > Ok refresh my memory as this is getting rather long... where in the > threat is there any *evidence* of faking results...
It's been pointed out. It's in your logs, and in the records of every ESP whose record mysteriously vanished from your zone, right about the time that Iverson's statistics showed a massive change. Interestingly, that could have been a great teachable moment: your false positives went away, but at the same time, your spam hits went way down -- so clearly some of those ESPs _were_ actually bad guys. But, instead of using that as an illustrative point of why blocking ESPs is hard -- they send a lot of wanted mail, but they also send a lot of spam -- you took it as a cue to go off on an insane rant about how Iverson was faking his numbers and violating your imaginary license, one that you perpetuate to this day.
> I'm saying evidence, not hearsay or assumptions made based on > Iverson's statement... because that is not *evidence*.
So you want me to provide you with your own zonefiles, that will prove to you that you're lying? That's silly, for two reasons: first, because you already have that evidence, and second, because this is not an episode of Perry Mason, and you are not under oath on the witness stand, and no amount of proof that I have that you're lying is going to make you suddenly say "okay, you got me, I was under a lot of stress and I snapped and said and did a bunch of stupid shit, and I'm sorry". But that's okay: you don't HAVE to admit it, because everybody familiar with it already knows that.
You woulda gotten away with it, if it waren't for those damn kids.
> >> and as a reputation provider, that statement if taken seriously > >> would very seriously tarnish my/SORBS' reputation. > > From where I'm sitting, your reputation seems to be 'crank, easily > > ignored', so I'm not entirely sure how you'd go about tarnishing > > that. > I know, you've always thought that, but it's amusing that I can reply > to you through all the thread politely and with the same information, > yet you keep throwing insults, changing stuff, relying on hearsay > etc...
If you'd like to review the record, I think you'll note that my tone was fairly civil until you started a post with 'you idiot', and which point you get what you give. And no, I'm not relying on 'hearsay'. The evidence is in your own logs.
> >> SORBS' and myself have always had a reputation of doing exactly > >> what is published, no matter how much that hurts, no matter how > >> much that could cost me personally. > > ...except when you don't like somebody's statistics, in which case > > you accuse them of lying and violating your imaginary license, yes. > > We've heard all of that before. > Umm I don't think I actually accused Iverson of lying...
Susan and Vernon have already covered this one pretty well, but it's still funny.
> he accused me of lying.
That's only a bad thing if you weren't actually lying, and not only were you then, you're still doing it now.
> I've already made a public call for him to allow me to post the entire > conversation that was had in a private forum.
> His answer was to ignore it and/or deny that permission, because it > would prove him to be the liar.
...yeah, no. I suspect that the reason he's ignoring you is because you've managed to convince him, in much the same way you've managed to convince me, that you're delusional.
> Of course you and others ignore that I have asked him to allow me to > post the complete conversation and show who the real liar is. To me > his refusal to allow me to publish it, is with out doubt the > indication of who is the liar.
You're the only one without that particular doubt.
> >> I have never wavered from that, unlike most others that come here > >> (and I'm not saying that's a bad thing for them to do - my > >> reputation is that I am a straight shooter, you get exactly what > >> you're told, nothing more nothing less.) > > ...so, how about posting that license, then? > LOL! put in a support request for it > http://www.sorbs.net/cgi-bin/support (or > http://www.sorbs.net/cgi-bin/mail and select "general" or "rsync") > you'll be given the link, which you'll have to login to view...
Ah, so it IS a shrinkwrap license. That may or may not actually be enforceable in the United States. ...assuming it exists at all, which I doubt.
> What you do with it is really upto you.. however don't forget to check > the copyright notice before you choose to post it publicly (remember I > have put it behind the login for good reason violation of copyright > will result in action.) Oh, and all here are welcome to do the same.
I am not interested in jumping through hoops to read your imaginary license, thanks.
Michelle Sullivan <michelle_s-n...@sorbs.net> wrote: > He is a liar and a thief. That's on public record, and I'd stand by > that statement all the way through court if necessary.
That's bold talk from someone on the other side of the planet, but fortunately for you, Al is smarter than David Linhardt.
> Every time someone takes a swing at SORBS' or my integrity (where it > references 'previous issues') this whole thing will start up again > until Iverson admits his mistake and apologises to me.
Then every time this issue comes up, you're going to damage what little integrity you or SORBS have left.
> I have a great contempt for people without integrity
You have my sympathy. That mirror in the bathroom must be painful to look at.
> Back to the analogy.. You tell someone they are not permitted to use the > lawn mower, and no matter how many signs are around saying that it's > free to use, they cannot use it.
Given that most (if not all) of your mirrors where donated, I wonder just how much control of your list you really had... As those that donated the systems for you to use, most likely did so with the understanding that they where free to be used by all.
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:54:52 +0100, Michelle Sullivan
<michelle_s-n...@sorbs.net> wrote: >Claus v. Wolfhausen wrote: >> Michelle Sullivan ranted about Al Iverson:
>>> He lied *and continues* to lie about me/SORBS. He also stole orignal >>> works from me and continues to do so, that makes him a thief. I don't >>> like liars and thieves.
>> You really sound nutty by calling Al an liar and thief. You don't have >> to wonder if people are stopping to use the SORBS.
>I know, I know, come to NANAE and tell the truth.. that's being nutty >because we all know everyone lies here... don't they Claus.
Looks like a lot of people named Michelle our outing themselves as fools these days.
<DeathToS...@crazyhat.net> wrote: >In message <hdhper$5k...@nemesis.sorbs.net> Michelle Sullivan ><michelle_s-n...@sorbs.net> was claimed to have wrote:
>>DevilsPGD wrote: >>> In message <hdeujr$94...@nemesis.sorbs.net> Michelle Sullivan >>> <michelle_s-n...@sorbs.net> was claimed to have wrote:
>>>> Put a lawn mower on your front garden and your neighbors borrow it >>>> without asking.. yeah....
>>> If it has a FAQ that says "Q: Who can use this law mower. A: Anyone! >>> Feel free to use it!", you'd look awful silly in front of a judge >>> complaining that I used said mower.
>>You're forgetting that Iverson was told to he didn't have permission >>(any assumed or implied permission was officially and publicly >>revoked).. The judge would then look on it a lot differently.
>Not if he then reviewed the FAQ and found that, as a member of "anyone" >he was welcome to use it.
>If the FAQ said "unless permission has been otherwise revoked, anyone >can use SORBS" then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Maybe she can modify it before trial to say "Anyone but Iverson"?
>>I cannot (and do not) complain about him using the data/resources before >>I told him to stop. He refused to stop and indicated if I tried to stop >>him he would evade any blocks until I stopped legitimate users as well.
>>Sorry but no matter how you argue that one, the judge would not favour >>him in any way.
>>Back to the analogy.. You tell someone they are not permitted to use the >>lawn mower, and no matter how many signs are around saying that it's >>free to use, they cannot use it.
You're obviously not a lawyer. If a sign says something is free and someone takes it, you can't say "the sign doesn't mean YOU". The sign is evidence and you can't have it both ways.
>So if you tell them they can use it, tell them they can't, then tell >them they can, are they allowed to use it or not?
and what if, after telling them they can't they say they don't want to so you say they can and then they do. Can you sue them for wanting to? This is all so childish. Oh wait, we're in nanae. Normal. :)
> He is a liar and a thief. That's on public record, and I'd stand by > that statement all the way through court if necessary. He is continuing > to lie (link and quote posted in another post). He stole my resources > and was at the time very vocal that he was right to do it (until someone > other than me pointed out to him that that would put him in the same > vein as a spammer) he also breached my copyright. Sorry Susan, all > public record, none of which has ever been apologised for, none of which > has been acknowledged none of which ever will because of the person he is.
Please, let's have this on the record to what you believe Al was lying about;
- That you emptied the zone.
- That you filtered dnsbl.com's queries via firewall.
- That you filtered his queries via rbldnsd's ACL.
- While we're on this, that that ACL may have been what most of of us would can a "view" as you can't seem to tell the difference.
- That you quickly fixed your false positives.
Really, it can only be one of those... And you're stated publicly in the past that there was no major change in policy that would have resulted on reduced false positives.
So please tell us, what is it that Al Iverson lied about? Did you empty the zone, or did you ACL Al off?.. Wait a minute, didn't you just say up thread that you couldn't have ACLed Al off because your copy of DNSBL could do that?.. So it *must* have been that you emptied the zone.
> At the time I could not change DNS responses for an individual without a > lot of work, anyone with the slightest knowledge about DNS will know > that. I have a method now of blocking an individuals usage of SORBS (by > global "firewalling" and using the access control lists built into > rbldnsd)
So, what you're saying here is, that at the time you couldn't haved ACL/firewalled Al off.
... and as you've stated before you didn't make any drastic changes to policy, and/or quickly remove tons of "questionable" entries on SORBS' lists.
So what does this leave? Statistical anomaly? Faulty software? Magic? Please help us understand, we'd like to see your next lie before it actually happens. Please also realize that you've already committed to calling Iverson a liar, so whatever new reason you come up with has to fit the "Al lies" story.
JustSomeGuy[sm] <"JustSomeGuy[sm]"@JustSomeGuy.sm> wrote: >Please, let's have this on the record to what you believe Al was lying >about;
>- That you emptied the zone. >- That you filtered dnsbl.com's queries via firewall. >- That you filtered his queries via rbldnsd's ACL. > - While we're on this, that that ACL may have been what most of > of us would can a "view" as you can't seem to tell the > difference. >- That you quickly fixed your false positives.
>Really, it can only be one of those.
Not so, because that list omits the single (implicit, not a) "lie" that Michelle Sullivan really cares about:
- the SORBS DNSBLs are not better than all others, and so Michelle Sullivan is not the world champion Top Spam Fighter.
DevilsPGD wrote: > In message <hdhper$5k...@nemesis.sorbs.net> Michelle Sullivan > <michelle_s-n...@sorbs.net> was claimed to have wrote:
>> DevilsPGD wrote:
>> You're forgetting that Iverson was told to he didn't have permission >> (any assumed or implied permission was officially and publicly >> revoked).. The judge would then look on it a lot differently.
> Not if he then reviewed the FAQ and found that, as a member of "anyone" > he was welcome to use it.
Check with a lawyer before you make those assumptions.
> If the FAQ said "unless permission has been otherwise revoked, anyone > can use SORBS" then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Not needed (check with a lawyer before you reply, seriously.)
> So if you tell them they can use it, tell them they can't, then tell > them they can, are they allowed to use it or not?
JustSomeGuy[sm] wrote: > Michelle Sullivan wrote: > (snip) >> Back to the analogy.. You tell someone they are not permitted to use the >> lawn mower, and no matter how many signs are around saying that it's >> free to use, they cannot use it.
> Given that most (if not all) of your mirrors where donated, I wonder > just how much control of your list you really had... As those that > donated the systems for you to use, most likely did so with the > understanding that they where free to be used by all.
Details of mirrors and the agreements are not for NANAE consumption, but I can tell you, telling someone they no longer have permission to use any of the resources was my prerogative.
JustSomeGuy[sm] wrote: > Michelle Sullivan wrote: > (snip) >> There is a simple fact:
>> At the time I could not change DNS responses for an individual without a >> lot of work, anyone with the slightest knowledge about DNS will know >> that. I have a method now of blocking an individuals usage of SORBS (by >> global "firewalling" and using the access control lists built into >> rbldnsd)
> So, what you're saying here is, that at the time you couldn't haved > ACL/firewalled Al off.
Correct.
> ... and as you've stated before you didn't make any drastic changes to > policy, and/or quickly remove tons of "questionable" entries on SORBS' > lists.
Correct.
> So what does this leave? Statistical anomaly?
Nope.
> Faulty software?
Nope.
> Magic?
Nope.
> Please help us understand, we'd like to see your next lie before it > actually happens. Please also realize that you've already committed to > calling Iverson a liar, so whatever new reason you come up with has to > fit the "Al lies" story.
Nope, you are limiting your consideration to "it must have been Michelle, because Iverson is a whitehat and would never do something".. Perhaps if you broaden your view and consider that I might actually be telling the truth and Iverson might actually not be, then you might come up with an explaination that is closer to the truth than anything previously discussed. The interesting part of course is what went on with the data I can only speculate because I was not privy to any of the stats generation methods so perhaps go back to the postings and have a look. Consider all possibilities and draw your own conclusions (yes I know your conclusion support Iverson already and that's not going to change, but it's worth mentioning anyhow).
Michelle Sullivan <michelle_s-n...@sorbs.net> wrote: > JustSomeGuy[sm] wrote: > > Please help us understand, we'd like to see your next lie before it > > actually happens. Please also realize that you've already committed > > to calling Iverson a liar, so whatever new reason you come up with > > has to fit the "Al lies" story. > Nope, you are limiting your consideration to "it must have been > Michelle, because Iverson is a whitehat and would never do something".. > Perhaps if you broaden your view and consider that I might actually be > telling the truth and Iverson might actually not be, then you might come > up with an explaination that is closer to the truth than anything > previously discussed. The interesting part of course is what went on > with the data I can only speculate because I was not privy to any of the > stats generation methods so perhaps go back to the postings and have a > look. Consider all possibilities and draw your own conclusions (yes I > know your conclusion support Iverson already and that's not going to > change, but it's worth mentioning anyhow).
You're forgetting the obvious: that when you removed all of those ESPs from the zone, Al Iverson wasn't the the only person looking at SORBS data, and so wasn't the only one who noticed. So continuing with the fiction that you didn't actually make any changes to the zone is enough crying wolf that now there's a pretty good chance that nobody is going to believe you even if you DO suddenly start telling the truth.
I don't know how much you know about ESPs, but they do actually monitor which DNSBLs their space is listed in, and people at competing ESPs still talk to each other, so when a bunch of them all vanish from the same DNSBL at the same time, people will naturally talk about it.
So, like I said: it isn't really important that you admit you're lying, it's enough for me just to know that you are. Also, at this point, I'm interested to see just how deep a hole you plan on digging. A two-page rant about your 'integrity' in the middle of all this? That's just funny.
No there are other posibilities... not that you'll consider them..
> And you're stated publicly in > the past that there was no major change in policy that would have > resulted on reduced false positives.
Correct.
> So please tell us, what is it that Al Iverson lied about?
Um... already stated publicly....
The following sentence is quoted from Iverson's site/page stats.dnsbl.com/sorbs.html
SORBS took issue with this data and began to feed inaccurate responses to DNSBL.com's query servers in July, 2007.
Neither I nor SORBS did any such thing. That makes him a liar plain and simple, or do you just not see that...? He even corrects himself to:
"SORBS has indicated that they have the ability to feed false or different data in response to queries from DNSBL.com. As such, it's unclear if recent query results are indicative of results seen by other users. Because of concerns that SORBS may be attempting to sway the data reported, it's important to share current data and information, so that system administrators can make an educated determination as to whether or not it would be wise to use this DNSBL." at www.dnsbl.com/2007/07/sorbs-on-accuracy-rates-and-false.html
Note the change of wording, note he hasn't (and hasn't for more than 2 years) stopped the lie. He hasn't corrected the page that people are referred to from "they falsified" to "they might have"... Either statement is quite libelous in the UK and Australia (libel laws work a little differently to the US there - opinions where the intent is to cause damage are libelous in the UK and Australia, the truth is no a defense if your *intent* is to cause damage... something another DNSbl would have found out (and won I might add - like me their intent is to protect, not to damage) had spammers been not so stupid.)
|
