Listen up, spammers!
S. P.
Interested Customer wrote:
>
> So the Smith bill dies and Murkowski's is going to be passed?
Someone claims in another post to have spoken to someone at Murkowski's
office, and they claim that his bill is also dead.
> As a Canadian resident, *I* don't have to accept that crap. Be
> advised, spammers, I am going to get downright righteous on your
> asses. If you thought I was aggressive in fighting spam before,
> get ready for a holy war. This has become a JIHAD so I hope your
> stomach is up for it.
Thank GOD that there are still people on the net who are willing to
fight for their rights and who are willing to defend their machines. I
protect myself from the spam, because I don't have time to deal with it
all, but look out if any UCE gets to my machine. Sure, its the American
Way to spam. I don't have any problem with spam because it does not
reach me. But if it ever does--well--there are a few thumpers I know
that will do anything for a buck--they understand what the American Way
is all about. And now Canada gets to get dumped on by American spam
because Congress is irritated about the ISPs fighting so hard against
the CDA.
The only thing that will really stop spam is a net war, a war of the
wires, bombs passing through the Internet to crash your enemies system.
Certainly it is illegal. Certainly it is WRONG! But certainly foreigners
should not be flooded with American spam just because the American
Congress is playing politics with the net.
Interested Customer
So the Smith bill dies and Murkowski's is going to be passed? Fine.
But it doesn't apply to countries outside the U.S.
Neil
Hi,
Of course Americans will be flooded with spam from the rest of the
world.
An American law don't mean diddly squat over here.
--
Neil McAliece
S. P.
noc@[127.0.0.1] wrote:
> It's all a big fat lie. The Smith Bill is still alive in Washington
> D.C. It seems that pro-SPAM factions seek to kill the Smith Bill
> because it hits them real hard. So if someone tells you that the
> Smith Bill is dead, don't believe them, it's all a great big lie!
What is the point of posting this message three times? Are you under the
impression that it will make your post more prominent, make it stand out
more? This is the same tactic used by spammers, endless repitition of
the same message.
As for your comment that my information is a lie, I remind you that in
America for a bill to pass it requires the votes of the Reps, Senate and
the signature of the Executive. The Congressional aide whom I spoke
with, a person of the utmost integrity, told me, that, while the Smith
bill is the best solution to the problem of spam, it is DOA at this
time, due to certain powerful Congressmen who are angry over the failure
of CDA. The impression my source left me with is that Congress will
eventually give the ISPs what they want, only after Congress gets what
it wants--censorship of the binary newsgroups on Usenet. So it is a give
and take political battle, only by taking away the spam on the Internet,
they will also take away the binary newsgroups, and thus begins the
effective censorship of the net, all because elitist and idealistic
sysadmins could come up with no adequate solution to stem the tide of
spam.
S. P.
Neil wrote:
>
> Of course Americans will be flooded with spam from the rest of the
> world. An American law don't mean diddly squat over here.
And now the Smith bill is dead on arrival, becoming nothing more than a
poker chip to be bet when Congress calls the ISPs bluff. They'll blink,
and the sysadmins will believe that their eyes will never fall on
another piece of spam, but the spam will nest on their disk, just as you
so aptly point out, and all the ISPs will be left wearing is an ill
fitting jock strap, much to big for their requirments, as they leave the
game of strip poker with Congress and rush outside into the cold wind.
S. P.
Dave Krieps wrote:
>
> If you consider the "American Way" as taking and not giving back,
> then I am sorry for your cynical approach to life. I had always
> thought that the "American Way" was to give fair value for a fair
> price; If you don't, the competition will. I never saw the "American
> Way" as the self centered opportunistic approach like spamming is.
But others do, else there would be no spam, and the world and Usenet
would be safe from spammers, and your hard drive would be clean of spam.
> BTW, you don't seem to have impressed, or changed the attitude of
> many of the posters here. It seems the overwhelming opinion is that
> spam is a disgusting and annoying approach to business. I have to
> wonder about the logic that would prompt you to continue your one-man
> stand for pro spam on an obviously anti-spam group.
Because your elitist and idealistic, though futile efforts to defeat
spam will lead to more and more regulation of the Internet. As far as my
one man crusade, there are apparently others at this group who do not
share your veiws, and many others who are reluctant to post, for fear of
revenge spam, but who nevertheless agree.
Scott Dorsey
So, why haven't you called the US embassy in your nearby city to
complain about the American citizens from AGIS and Cyberpromo who
are making Canadian network facilities overloaded?
Seems to me that when the State Department starts complaining, things
get done.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
S. P.
Dave Krieps wrote:
>
> Had you read the article I posted, and then understood it, you would
> realize that it is the spammers that are causing legislation and a
> less free and open Internet.
I apologize, Mr. Krieps, for my mistake. Certainly you are right on
every point, but as the Smith Bill is dead, and as Mr. Scott Dorsey has
also posted information that the Murkowski bill is also DOA, other, more
drastic measures will have to be adopted by the anti-spam camp if they
seek to rid the net of spam. I do not bother with spam; it never nests
on my hard drive, so I have no score to settle with them. But I am
disappointed to see that the perhaps noble lost cause that your faction
has been waging has been spearheaded by such an inept leader as Mr.
Chris Lewis, an individual who may have won honors in law but has proven
himself to be an immaculatly inept political leader, as, with the death
of the two bills, the result of Republican revenge over CDA, the
spammers have won this round, and now the sysadmins appear as buffoons,
having run into the greedy arms of Congress to help them in their
Crusade against spam, as the greedy American spammers <GRIN> from ear to
ear at the latest defeat of American idealism, idealism once again
smashed to pieces by the hammer of American hypocrisy.
Scott Dorsey
In article <339b5389...@nntp.a001.sprintmail.com> noc@[127.0.0.1] writes:
>
>It's all a big fat lie. The Smith Bill is still alive in Washington
>D.C. It seems that pro-SPAM factions seek to kill the Smith Bill
>because it hits them real hard. So if someone tells you that the
>Smith Bill is dead, don't believe them, it's all a great big lie!
However, the chances of the bill going through committee and then the
house without radical revisions are still pretty poor, especially given
the previous record of the committee.
This bill _will_ die unless _you_ support it. Remember to call your
representative at 1-800-962-3524 or 1-800-972-3524 and tell them how
important the bill is to you, and that spam is a major problem for
you personally. If you don't tell them that the Smith bill is
important to you, they'll never know.
---scott
S. P.
Dave Krieps wrote:
>
> Assuming you and you compatriot are correct, and that those bills
> are dead, it is a minor setback for the anti-spam camp. According to
> a particular report, 37% of Americans have computers. I can only assume that as
> the percentage of Americans abused by UCE grows, the spammers will
> lose. What a way to gain customers.<g>
Yes, Mr. Krieps, it is only a minor setback, but nonetheless an
embarassing setback for the responsible net community, but a major
victory in disguise for the future of the Internet, for now individuals
who answer to a higher responsibility will take matters into their own
hands, fight back against the spam, destroy it at its source, pulling it
up like an unwanted weed whenever it sprouts in the garden, and thus, as
the net community grows, these new participants will not feel the sting
of UCE in their inbox, the spammers will lose their hair, and the net
will be unburdened of these CRUSADERS! such as Mr. Chris Lewis who seek
to poison the wires with legislation to protect the net by protecting
themselves from prison time.
>
> Ultimately, due to the irresponsibility of the spammers, laws will
> be enacted to curtail the annoyance that spammers offer as product.
> As the Internet grows, the numbers of those that reject spam as
> the"American Way" will grow too. At some point, spammers will cut
> their own throats.
But, Mr. Krieps, if it will preclude these CRUSADERS! such as Mr. Chris
Lewis from polluting the net with legislation, legislation the result of
their own cowardice to fight back against spam--for fear of a few paltry
years in a minimum security prison--with the only weapons that will
strike at their heart, then, though the spammers have every right to
clog an unlegislated net, then we will unleash the flood of animosity
that has been dammed up; release it upon the spammers; plant mail mines
across Usenet; eliminate the spam to eliminate the worse evil--these
misguided, idealistic CRUSADERS!
> To bad they, and you, can't see that. This is where I can agree
> that it is the "American way" of business today; it is the short
> sighted take-the-gain-today attitude that has always caused
> legislation to be passed.
Yes, and you clearly understand the spirit of my statements. But I
remind you and the international community who participates at the ng:
It is also the American Way to solve the problem ourselves, without the
aid of any impotent Government. If the International community calls
upon Americans to destroy the spam, destroy what Congress is unwilling
to do without receiving payment in return, payment--the cost of which is
the price of our freedom on the net--then we will show ourselves up to
the task with our mail mines to thump spam from our borders forever.
root
In article <339B00...@by.posting.please>,
S. P. <re...@by.posting.please> wrote:
>will be unburdened of these CRUSADERS! such as Mr. Chris Lewis who seek
>to poison the wires with legislation to protect the net by protecting
>themselves from prison time.
Flame below.
>> Ultimately, due to the irresponsibility of the spammers, laws will
>> be enacted to curtail the annoyance that spammers offer as product.
>> As the Internet grows, the numbers of those that reject spam as
>> the"American Way" will grow too. At some point, spammers will cut
>> their own throats.
>
>But, Mr. Krieps, if it will preclude these CRUSADERS! such as Mr. Chris
>Lewis from polluting the net with legislation, legislation the result of
>their own cowardice to fight back against spam--for fear of a few paltry
>years in a minimum security prison--with the only weapons that will
>strike at their heart, then, though the spammers have every right to
>clog an unlegislated net, then we will unleash the flood of animosity
>that has been dammed up; release it upon the spammers; plant mail mines
>across Usenet; eliminate the spam to eliminate the worse evil--these
>misguided, idealistic CRUSADERS!
Are you fucking NUTS?!?!
As much I want to blow all spammers into the next universe, I AM *NOT*
WILLING TO GO TO JAIL FOR IT. Enacting retribution on a spammer is
*NOT* worth the price of getting buttfucked for three years and having a
criminal record.
As I have said several times, my email address is munged (there is no
"spam" in there for grepbots to whack, either), I have a
quadruply-redundant set of filters on my computer, including two procmail
scripts, sendmail.cf rules, and a fuckton of entries in /etc/hosts.deny,
and *still* I get spam. I'm doing about as much as I reasonably can to
combat spam yet it still passes through. Unlike Texas, most states do
not have unconditional-retaliation laws. Since spam does not constitute
a 'life-threatening danger', Georgia law does not permit me to
annihilate the bastard. If I retaliate via hacking his computer,
Georgia, the spammer's state, and Uncle Sam all throw *my* ass in jail
and I spend the next three years picking up soap and getting soaped at
the same time.
If you want to feel some guy's dick up *your* ass once a day, be my
guest. To me, the consequences infinitely outweigh the benefits.
Rep. Smith's proposal does not license Uncle Sam to censor anything.
What it does is provides *legal* (as opposed to illegal) recourse for
victims of spam. The American People (tm) are requesting that Congress
pass this law. *This* is the American Way (tm). Congress supposedly acts
according to our wishes (theoretically, at least ...), and our wishes
are to have a means of seeking redress for crimes committed against us,
ie spam.
>
>> To bad they, and you, can't see that. This is where I can agree
>> that it is the "American way" of business today; it is the short
>> sighted take-the-gain-today attitude that has always caused
>> legislation to be passed.
>
>Yes, and you clearly understand the spirit of my statements. But I
>remind you and the international community who participates at the ng:
>It is also the American Way to solve the problem ourselves, without the
>aid of any impotent Government. If the International community calls
>upon Americans to destroy the spam, destroy what Congress is unwilling
>to do without receiving payment in return, payment--the cost of which is
>the price of our freedom on the net--then we will show ourselves up to
>the task with our mail mines to thump spam from our borders forever.
If Washington were impotent, America would cease to exist. A good
government empowers its citizens to do all they can themselves; Rep.
Smith's bill does exactly that. What you fail to realize, Mr. "S"tupid
"P"erson, is that Rep. Smith's bill gives the *citizenry* the authority
to say, "Hey, spammer, you just spammed me in direct violation of the
law. If Uncle Sam doesn't prosecute you (and even if he does!), I'm
suing you for $500."
Without Rep. Smith's bill
Methods of retaliation = complaining + filters + (hacking/deny service)
Serious consequences = three years in the slammer
With Rep. Smith's bill
Methods of retaliation = complaining + filters + suing
Serious consequences = none
--
--> NOTE --> Spambot-confounding return address! Nuke the words in caps.
root@localhost postm...@127.0.0.1 pres...@whitehuse.gov tr...@xyz.com
recu...@recursive.net billy...@microsoft.com a...@intel.com
cy...@amd.com tmcv...@electric.chair.net spm...@mustdie.com m...@jjj.net
S. P.
root wrote:
>
> Are you fucking NUTS?!?!
Because I do not seek to solve the problem as you and your cabal do?
Solve the problem by attempting to wrap your arms around the private
parts of an American Congressman, spindly arms that are incapable of
encompassing the circumference? Your use of the word "NUTS" reminds me
of the famous words of one of our brave soldiers spoken to the commander
of a German panzar division who asked the surrounded soldiers for their
surrender. That soldiers' words are echoed by the many who silently
support my position, as the American Congress drives its tanks across
the bridges of the Internet and asks for surrender: "NUTS!"
> As much I want to blow all spammers into the next universe, I AM *NOT*
> WILLING TO GO TO JAIL FOR IT. Enacting retribution on a spammer is
> *NOT* worth the price of getting buttfucked for three years...
Just what I would expect from an intellectual elitist who knows little
about the world but much about the workings of the boiler room that is
the inevitable fate of sysadmins, to forever trudge in the engine rooms
of the mighty ISPs. I have several friends who have done hard time for
drug related offenses, and none suffered the same injustice you refer
to, the same injustice that you so OPENLY invite from the American
Congress.
> If I retaliate via hacking his computer,
> Georgia, the spammer's state, and Uncle Sam all throw *my* ass in jail
> and I spend the next three years picking up soap and getting soaped at
> the same time.
<GRIN!>
> If you want to feel some guy's dick up *your* ass once a day, be my
> guest. To me, the consequences infinitely outweigh the benefits.
Since I do not recieve spam, root, as I am cautious not to expose myself
to it, I have yet to be "soaped" by spam as you apparently have been
time and again.
> If Washington were impotent, America would cease to exist. A good
> government empowers its citizens to do all they can themselves; Rep.
> Smith's bill does exactly that. What you fail to realize, Mr. "S"tupid
> "P"erson, is that Rep. Smith's bill gives the *citizenry* the authority
> to say, "Hey, spammer, you just spammed me in direct violation of the
> law. If Uncle Sam doesn't prosecute you (and even if he does!), I'm
> suing you for $500."
And the evil spammers quake with fear in the shadows as you call out to
them: "Come out, spammer! Get out here, you rascal, wherever you are!
I'm suing you for $500!!!" And they <GRIN> with delight as they break
out the soap.
S. P.
root wrote:
>
> Now explain to me again how Rep. Smith's bill buttfucks us. Rep.
> Smith's bill does not censor the Internet.
As a historian the answer presents itself clearly. The Congress will
require that, in exchange for passage of the anti-spam bill, compliance
with CDA is mandatory. The mechanism for the destruction of the non-FCC
regulated Internet is not the Smith bill and its legislation against
spam, but in the nature of American politics, which requires that the
favor always be returned. In this case, the Smith bill, which is seen by
Congressmen as a paltry little thing, is being used by Congress to
bargain for enforcement of CDA.
> And that brings me back to the original point when you started this
> thread a week ago: spam is *un*solicited, *un*welcomed, and *un*wanted.
> Why should we have to defend ourselves against something that shouldn't
> be plaguing us in the first place?
Which brings me back to the original point when I started this thread a
week ago: Because it is the American Way, unless you also feel that you
should not have to defend yourself against the murderer or the theif,
as, of course, it is something that shouldn't be plaguing you in the
first place. But I doubt you place yourself in harm's way as willingly
as you do when you post your email on Usenet and invite the spambots to
come calling at your inbox.
Interested Customer
root
In article <339B3E...@by.posting.please>,
S. P. <re...@by.posting.please> wrote:
>
>Because I do not seek to solve the problem as you and your cabal do?
>Solve the problem by attempting to wrap your arms around the private
>parts of an American Congressman, spindly arms that are incapable of
>encompassing the circumference? Your use of the word "NUTS" reminds me
>of the famous words of one of our brave soldiers spoken to the commander
>of a German panzar division who asked the surrounded soldiers for their
>surrender. That soldiers' words are echoed by the many who silently
>support my position, as the American Congress drives its tanks across
>the bridges of the Internet and asks for surrender: "NUTS!"
General McAuliffe (sp?) is turning over in his grave right now, thanks
to you. *Our* silent supporters, who want to see spam stopped by the
same forces (ie, 47 USC 228 (?)) that have stopped junk fax far
outnumber your silent supporters and we will pass that bill. See how
futile and useless conjuring up nonpeople is in this argument?
As for saying "NUTS" to spammers, that's exactly what Rep. Smith's
amendment seeks to do. We get spam, we say "NUTS to YOU, $cammy."
>> As much I want to blow all spammers into the next universe, I AM *NOT*
>> WILLING TO GO TO JAIL FOR IT. Enacting retribution on a spammer is
>> *NOT* worth the price of getting buttfucked for three years...
>
>Just what I would expect from an intellectual elitist who knows little
>about the world but much about the workings of the boiler room that is
>the inevitable fate of sysadmins, to forever trudge in the engine rooms
>of the mighty ISPs. I have several friends who have done hard time for
>drug related offenses, and none suffered the same injustice you refer
>to, the same injustice that you so OPENLY invite from the American
>Congress.
Now explain to me again how Rep. Smith's bill buttfucks us. Rep.
Smith's bill does not censor the Internet. It seeks to stop theft,
trespassing, and extortion. Sen. Murkowski's bill, OTOH, *does*
buttfuck us. But I'm not supporting the senator's bill, now am I? The
senator's bill should rightly be DOA. It does not solve the problem; it
only fans the flames, making a "small" five-alarm fire into a citywide
conflagration. Rep. Smith's bill stops spam at the source.
And that brings me back to the original point when you started this
thread a week ago: spam is *un*solicited, *un*welcomed, and *un*wanted.
Why should we have to defend ourselves against something that shouldn't
be plaguing us in the first place?
>> If Washington were impotent, America would cease to exist. A good
>> government empowers its citizens to do all they can themselves; Rep.
>> Smith's bill does exactly that. What you fail to realize, Mr. "S"tupid
>> "P"erson, is that Rep. Smith's bill gives the *citizenry* the authority
>> to say, "Hey, spammer, you just spammed me in direct violation of the
>> law. If Uncle Sam doesn't prosecute you (and even if he does!), I'm
>> suing you for $500."
>
>And the evil spammers quake with fear in the shadows as you call out to
>them: "Come out, spammer! Get out here, you rascal, wherever you are!
>I'm suing you for $500!!!" And they <GRIN> with delight as they break
>out the soap.
And we get the last laugh when we see a nice fat cashier's check for
$500 appear in our snailmail boxes. Sure, individually, $500 is
nothing. Collectively, Scammy's $800,000 in revenue will vanish in no time
flat.
Roswell Coverup
In article <5nej1j$k...@knot.queensu.ca>, root@[127.0.0.1] says...
> So the Smith bill dies and Murkowski's is going to be passed? Fine.
> But it doesn't apply to countries outside the U.S.
>
I somehow missed the post that you are referring to, but seems like a
whole lot of misinforming going on.....
--
JOWazzoo - A Very Disturbed Nerd & InterNUT Bluelist Member
Fight spam, support Rep. Chris Smith's TCPA extension by joining
CAUCE: http://www.cauce.org
Green SpamBotFrog's No Spam WWW Spam Home Spam Page
http://members.tripod.com/~JOWazzoo/index.html
S.P.
Roswell Coverup wrote:
> I somehow missed the post that you are referring to, but seems like a
> whole lot of misinforming going on.....
No, just politics, the American Way.
Cheers,
S.P.
Troy Williams
Interested Customer <root@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>So the Smith bill dies and Murkowski's is going to be passed? Fine.
>But it doesn't apply to countries outside the U.S.
I don't want Murkoski's bill to be passed, in fact, I think that this
bill will die and Smith's will take over....
>As a Canadian resident, *I* don't have to accept that crap. Be
>advised, spammers, I am going to get downright righteous on your
>asses. If you thought I was aggressive in fighting spam before,
>get ready for a holy war. This has become a JIHAD so I hope your
>stomach is up for it.
Hehehehehe, what do you think that you are going to do that is legal,
or that your ISP will allow which will stop the spammers? We are doing
about all that we can right now legally and according to our ISPs
policy, we can't do any more... IF we mailbomb, we are doing the same
thing as the spammers..
We are all in the same boat, but then we don't need any anti-spammers
to start doing something that might screw up our chances of gettign
something done about the spam here in the US. The Canadian gov't might
follow and might get something done about it, along with the rest of
the countries in the world...
You might be a redneck if... You've ever relieved yourself from
a moving vehicle. - Jeff Foxworthy
Please reply in email and the newsgroup.
Troy Williams
noc@[127.0.0.1] wrote:
>It's all a big fat lie. The Smith Bill is still alive in Washington
>D.C. It seems that pro-SPAM factions seek to kill the Smith Bill
>because it hits them real hard. So if someone tells you that the
>Smith Bill is dead, don't believe them, it's all a great big lie!
Shoot, I'm glad that it is still alive, now it's just a matter of
getting it passed that we all need to work on. :)
S.P.
noc@[127.0.0.1] wrote:
>
> Yo' dude! Hate to tell you this but the Smith Bill still lives.
> Whoever told you the Smith Bill is dead is a liar!
They are Republicans. The surprise FTC hearings on Internet privacy,
which I eluded to in my thread "Spam is American Way" has buried your
bill, regardless of what your sources tell you.
David C. Mescher
In news.admin.net-abuse.misc S.P. <re...@by.posting.please> wrote:
Judging from the timestamp on your post, you have no clue as to what
you are talking about, since that post was made at 2am... on the 12th.
--
Dave Mescher dmes...@csugrad.cs.vt.edu
COMMERCIAL SOLICITATIONS ARE NOT WELCOME AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
TANSTAAFL!
S.P.
Dave Romerstein wrote:
>
> These would be the same "surprise FTC" hearings that we first got wind of in
> March, when a request breezed through this newsgroup for comments to be
> forwarded to the FTC? A quick Deja News search shows 3/20/97 - "FTC wants
> comments on unsolicited junkmail". That's only 2 1/2 months - some surprise.
Sheesh you people are easy marks. Sheesh you are dim. You have been so
easily manipulated into admitting that you are part of the FTC CABAL!
Exposing your group as the hypocrites will be easier than we ever
imagined! Let the media who is reading this thread and the others, let
them read this admission that these sysadmins are working hand in hand
with the FTC! Talk about net-abuse: You guys are abusing it with your
rank ineptitude and political innocence. Stop acting the part of Little
Red Riding Hood--there is a wandering wolf on the loose with a ravenous
appetitie for your Internet freedom--a wolf in a Congressman's clothes.
Daniel Podgurski
On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Dave Romerstein wrote:
> >They are Republicans. The surprise FTC hearings on Internet privacy,
> >which I eluded to in my thread "Spam is American Way" has buried your
> >bill, regardless of what your sources tell you.
>
> These would be the same "surprise FTC" hearings that we first got wind of in
> March, when a request breezed through this newsgroup for comments to be
> forwarded to the FTC? A quick Deja News search shows 3/20/97 - "FTC wants
> comments on unsolicited junkmail". That's only 2 1/2 months - some surprise.
Besides, he can't spell alluded. Hey, weren't those hearings today?
I want a transcript. Where can I get one?
eluded: meaning "hidden from"
alluded: meaning "referred to"
MrGrammarPerson
S.P.
Daniel Podgurski, the mad Russian, can't get laid tonight so he pulled
on his beard, looked in the dictionary and wrote:
>
> Besides, he can't spell alluded.
> alluded: meaning "referred to"
Only a true wanker gives a damn about typos on USENET. Attacking people
for misspllings, insulting them for puttin wrds wair they ain't posed to
be, &c, is the sign of a worthless wanker. No one who has been around
long on USENET cares to call typos to anyone's attention. Keep your
posts on topic. You, Podgurski, descendant through the line of the
Petersberg Podgurski's, blood relative of Rasputin and the madman
formerly known as Phoenix, you are a true NIPPIE, the absolute FOTS.
<GRIN>
John Lundgren
S.P. (re...@by.posting.please) wrote:
: Daniel Podgurski, the mad Russian, can't get laid tonight so he pulled
And you have no license to speak for others on usenet. Your IMHO is just
that, a humble opinion, nothing more. BTW, you misspelled misspelling
incorrectly, and other 'wrds' too.
--
Please send email to the following address, NOT the deltanet one.
--
#===================================================================#
| John Lundgren - Elec Tech - Info Tech Svcs. | lundgrej@mail. |
| Rancho Santiago Community College District | rancho.cc.ca.us |
| 17th St at Bristol \ Santa Ana, CA 92706 | http://www.rancho|
| My opinions are my own, and not my employer's. | .cc.ca.us |
! Unsolicited Email is THEFT of Service and Harassment! STOP! !
#======P=G=P==k=e=y==a=v=a=i=l=a=b=l=e==u=p=o=n==r=e=q=u=e=s=t======#
Daniel Podgurski
On a road trip to Berlin this past Fri, 13 Jun 1997, S.P. wrote:
> Daniel Podgurski, the mad Russian, can't get laid tonight so he pulled
> on his beard, looked in the dictionary and wrote:
No, no, no, the SCARY part about it is that I DO NOT need a dictionary
most of the time.
> Only a true wanker gives a damn about typos on USENET. Attacking people
> for misspllings, insulting them for puttin wrds wair they ain't posed to
> be, &c, is the sign of a worthless wanker. No one who has been around
> long on USENET cares to call typos to anyone's attention. Keep your
> posts on topic. You, Podgurski, descendant through the line of the
> Petersberg Podgurski's, blood relative of Rasputin and the madman
> formerly known as Phoenix, you are a true NIPPIE, the absolute FOTS.
> <GRIN>
ROFLMAO.
I tip my hat to you, sir, because you truely made me laugh.
Ok, I'm not a brit, so, what's a nippie and what's a fots?
On what you said about being a usenet newbie, well, *sortof* I've lurked
for the past 3 years, mostly. I am, though, one of the great unwashed
that got his start on BBSes approximately 11 years ago, and only moving
most of my electronic communication to the 'Net 4 years ago.
A few notes tho, on accuracy....
Podgurski is Polish; not Russian, though my mum oft tells my dad that he's
actually a barbarian Tartar. I have the sneaking suspician that it may be
the other way 'round.
(ducking)
I also noticed the *conveeeeenient* way you snipped my quotes. You didn't
answer my question: where can I get a transcript of the FTC hearings?
I do this for fun, mostly, so I wouldn't give a woodchuck's nose for any
snide remarks from the peanut gallery. :-P
I still want a transcript, though. I was unable to listen to the
realaudio broadcast (some of us have real jobs...sigh)
Begin Rant (not directed at anyone in particular, just a venting):
I am not an admin, I am merely a user. Someday I will put Grendel's Den
BBS back up, possibly on the 'Net, but until then, I will stay a lowly
user. I read and post to this group because the level of spam in my
mailbox *before I started posting here* was *already* intolerable, and
detracting from my enjoyment of telecom.
Electronic mail used to have 2 very redeeming qualities that I fear may
be short lived, one of which has already disappeared. 1., No junk mail
*hah*...Cantor and Siegel (sp?) spamed around the world in a day, but
they did not know what they unleashed. 2., no bills. This may change,
however.
This is why I am here. I remember the old days when it was just people,
not commercial entities, sending email. Prometheus has given the gift of
fire to the spammers, however, and it's tough to put the genie back in to
the bottle. (yes, yes, I know, I'm mixing metaphors...go fly a kite off a
short pier and when you're on the bottom, open Davey Jones' locker and get
the dime so you can call someone who cares)
End Rant.
Dan
Disgusting Trivia of the Day: As mentioned above, woodchuck noses are
relatively cheap. At last check I think the Depeartment of Environmental
Management of Rhode Island still will collect woodchuck noses and give you
the bounty on them, which is around 25 cents each. Why noses? It's
becase the little bugger only has *one* of those.
S.P.
John Lundgren wrote:
> Your IMHO is just that, a humble opinion, nothing more. BTW, you misspelled > > misspelling incorrectly, and other 'wrds' too.
The words were spelled incorrectly on purpose, knowing as I do that only
newbies critisize peeple on how thay spell when posting on USENET. You
may find yourself making many typos after you post long enough, and then
you will know, that critisism of a person's spelling on USENET is
tantamount to critisism of a person's speech impediments or accents when
in public, both of which are frowned upon in our interpersonal
communication with each other.
Cheers
S.P.
S.P.
Phoenix rose from the ashes again and wrote:
>
> BTW, how can they be surprise hearings if we've been talking about them
> for over a month?
The answer is obvious, Phoenix: No one who matters has been listening to
you and your fellow participants talking about it nor paying any
attention to you in particular whatsoever, unless to ridicule you, as
you rise again... and again... and again...
S.P.
Rich, who really is impersonating a spammer right now Tietjens wrote:
>
> Either this is too subtle for me
That's right, Rich, it is too subtle for you.
Sheesh you Nippies are naive.
? the platypus {aka David Formosa}
at...@teleport.com (Rich Tietjens) writes:
[...]
>I have no idea - what's a nippie?
net >-< hippie
As you can tell it was inveneted by markiting folks.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia see the url in my header.
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep. Buy easter bilbies.
Save the ABC Is $0.08 per day too much to pay? ex-net.scum and proud
I'm sorry but I just don't consider 'because its yukky' a convinceing argument
Patricia A. Shaffer
Rich Tietjens wrote:
>
> In article <5o2312$e...@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>, mil...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (Bruce Mills) wrote:
> >
> >In article <33A314...@by.posting.please>,
> >S.P. <re...@by.posting.please> wrote:
> >
> >>Sheesh you Nippies are naive.
> >
>
> I have no idea - what's a nippie? I know hippies, yippies, yuppies,
> dippies, Dumbocrats and Reprehensicans, but I don't think I've ever heard of
> a nippie.
>
I'm not sure this is what he meant, but Nipponese is another name for
Japanese. I believe Nippon was the original name for a part of Japan.
Patricia
Crookesp
In article <5o5a6b$2ec...@news.teleport.com>, at...@teleport.com (Rich
Tietjens) writes:
>I have no idea - what's a nippie? I know hippies, yippies, yuppies,
>dippies, Dumbocrats and Reprehensicans, but I don't think I've ever heard
of
>a nippie.
>
>
Nippies, of course, were the female serving staff at Lyons Tea Houses in
London. As there are no longer any Lyons Tea Houses in London, there are
also no longer any Nippies, though there may still be ex-Nippies, or even
vestigial Nippies, to be found in some dark corner of that great city.
The word is therefore free for re-assignment...
*Philip*
Keith M. Lucas
In article <5o5a6b$2ec...@news.teleport.com>,
Rich Tietjens <at...@teleport.com> wrote:
>In article <5o2312$e...@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>, mil...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (Bruce Mills) wrote:
>>
>>In article <33A314...@by.posting.please>,
>>S.P. <re...@by.posting.please> wrote:
>>
>>>Sheesh you Nippies are naive.
>>
>>That's a rather gratuitous racial slur, don't you think?
>
>dippies, Dumbocrats and Reprehensicans, but I don't think I've ever heard of
>a nippie.
I think it starts with "No Income,.."
Actually I'd guess at most of the people here being twinkies or sinkies.
----------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
"It's not a personality.. it's a bulldozer" | Current project: Computer
sillywiz at excession dot demon dot co dot uk | wargaming's next generation...
----------------------------------------------+--------------------------------
IQ test in my email address. Humans can solve it to reply, spambots can't (yet)
----------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
For best results, view this with Linux. | Support death penalty for spammers !
----------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
Archie Campbell
I am a postmaster for WebTV Networks,
I recently sent a bulk reply to those complaining of spam that said
people felt WebTV was implicit in perpetuating. After one angry
response, I feel it's necessary to clarify my last mail. I'm posting
this publicly, since one of the respondents it screening out mail from
our domain.
For addressing everyone in the 'To:' line of my bulk response: My
apologies. In my haste to implement damage control, I forgot to change
'To:' to 'Bcc:'. My apologies to anyone who feels their privacy was
violated.
As to my original response:
1) Perhaps I didn't make myself clear: The 'To:' ('Reply-to:') line in
the original spam appear to be forged. Obviously, I cannot comment on
our subscribers, but suffice it to say that we do not feel the person in
the 'To:' header of the spam is the person who originated the spam. One
of the tactics employed by spammers is to find a random WebTV address
and put that in the 'To:' line, and the rest of the recipients in the
'Bcc:' line.
2) WebTV is *not* spam-friendly.
Thanks for your time.
Archie
Michael S. Scheidell
My experience with webtv is that they do kill spammers.
(even the ones spamming 'web tv' sales!)
When they first went on line it scared me...
"Now all it costs is $399 in equipment and $20/mth" to spam.
But, seems that even after the major webtv push, the real amount of webtv
spam is pretty small.
In article <33AB38...@xcorp.webtv.net>, Archie
Campbell wrote: >I am a postmaster for WebTV Networks,
>
>1) Perhaps I didn't make myself clear: The 'To:' ('Reply-to:') line in
>the original spam appear to be forged. Obviously, I cannot comment on
>our subscribers, but suffice it to say that we do not feel the person in
>the 'To:' header of the spam is the person who originated the spam. One
>of the tactics employed by spammers is to find a random WebTV address
>and put that in the 'To:' line, and the rest of the recipients in the
>'Bcc:' line.
>
>2) WebTV is *not* spam-friendly.
>
>Thanks for your time.
>
>Archie
--
Fight for free speech and privacy on the internet
Support REP. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH's "Netizens Protection Act of 1997"
http://www.tigerden.com/junkmail
Member C.A.U.C.E <http://www.cauce.org>