Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Bradley Wiggins in hospital with rib injuries after being hit by van
7 views
Skip to first unread message
I am not Paul Cumnmins
Nov 15, 2012, 7:41:56 AM11/15/12
to
On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:29 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when goo1...@yahoo.co.uk (PhilO) came
>up to me and whispered:
>
>> What about your "German cousin" - does that count as admission.
>> And how many others have you used?
>
>He has also used paul.cummins (at) outlook.com despite my owning that
>address
Someone (see above) has accused me of using their email address which they
"own".
I wonder how they came to "own" it - and why they have never posted using it
themselves?
Surely if they "own" it - then they can use it?
Must I stop using it - as the other person clearly claims it is theirs?
Could the person not be all that bright (perhaps not IT literate) - or are
they just untruthful?
uset...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>We were about to embark at Dover, when goo1...@yahoo.co.uk (PhilO) came
>up to me and whispered:
>
>> What about your "German cousin" - does that count as admission.
>> And how many others have you used?
>
>He has also used paul.cummins (at) outlook.com despite my owning that
>address
Someone (see above) has accused me of using their email address which they
"own".
I wonder how they came to "own" it - and why they have never posted using it
themselves?
Surely if they "own" it - then they can use it?
Must I stop using it - as the other person clearly claims it is theirs?
Could the person not be all that bright (perhaps not IT literate) - or are
they just untruthful?
Justin
Nov 15, 2012, 7:56:41 AM11/15/12
to
On Nov 15, 1:42 pm, I am not Paul Cumnmins <paul.cumm...@outlook.com>
wrote:
> >We were about to embark at Dover, when goo18...@yahoo.co.uk (PhilO) came
wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012 15:29 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
>
> useth...@stedtelephone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>
> >We were about to embark at Dover, when goo18...@yahoo.co.uk (PhilO) came
> >up to me and whispered:
>
> >> What about your "German cousin" - does that count as admission.
> >> And how many others have you used?
>
> >He has also used paul.cummins (at) outlook.com despite my owning that
> >address
>
> Someone (see above) has accused me of using their email address which they
> "own".
>
> I wonder how they came to "own" it - and why they have never posted using it
> themselves?
>
> Surely if they "own" it - then they can use it?
>
> Must I stop using it - as the other person clearly claims it is theirs?
>
> Could the person not be all that bright (perhaps not IT literate) - or are
> they just untruthful?
Quite right, Dave. It's posting made up shit again.
>
> >> What about your "German cousin" - does that count as admission.
> >> And how many others have you used?
>
> >He has also used paul.cummins (at) outlook.com despite my owning that
> >address
>
> Someone (see above) has accused me of using their email address which they
> "own".
>
> I wonder how they came to "own" it - and why they have never posted using it
> themselves?
>
> Surely if they "own" it - then they can use it?
>
> Must I stop using it - as the other person clearly claims it is theirs?
>
> Could the person not be all that bright (perhaps not IT literate) - or are
> they just untruthful?
Ian Smith
Nov 15, 2012, 9:41:28 AM11/15/12
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:41:56 +0000, I am not Paul Cumnmins <paul.c...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> Someone (see above) has accused me of using their email address
> which they "own".
>
> I wonder how they came to "own" it - and why they have never posted
> using it themselves?
Do you really think that if someone owns something they have to use
>
> Someone (see above) has accused me of using their email address
> which they "own".
>
> I wonder how they came to "own" it - and why they have never posted
> using it themselves?
it? What law mandates that you must use everything you own? Do you
have to use it at least once a year, once a week? What law says that
if you fail to use something then someone else is entitled to use it?
> Surely if they "own" it - then they can use it?
it? What law mandates that a person must use everything they are able
to use?
I own a couple of domain names I do not use, and have never used. My
company owns even more domain names it does not use and has never
used. At least one of the domain names it does not use it purchased
from someone who had never used it. You should not use those names
even though the company that owns them does not - it owns them
specifically so others will not use them.
Is this really a difficult concept to grasp?
Still, it gives us a laugh that you maintain that your failure to
grasp the concept of owning addresses without using them is because
someone else is not very bright.
Carry on.
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
M Wicks
Nov 15, 2012, 10:51:29 AM11/15/12
to
On Nov 15, 2:41 pm, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
> Still, it gives us a laugh that you maintain that your failure to
> grasp the concept of owning addresses without using them is because
> someone else is not very bright.
Who is this "us"? And of course the above is a gross misrepresentation
> Still, it gives us a laugh that you maintain that your failure to
> grasp the concept of owning addresses without using them is because
> someone else is not very bright.
of what Judith said, as you well know.
A self-described Christian being deceitful and demeaning: now where
have we seen that before? Do you miss your shit-wallowing friend?
Strange that you had such a go at him and said how much you detested
him when you have so much in common with him. Perhaps now you'll
pretend you don't know who I mean.
Ian Smith
Nov 15, 2012, 11:04:13 AM11/15/12
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 07:51:29 -0800 (PST), M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2:41 pm, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Still, it gives us a laugh that you maintain that your failure to
> > grasp the concept of owning addresses without using them is
> > because someone else is not very bright.
>
> Who is this "us"? And of course the above is a gross
> misrepresentation of what Judith said, as you well know.
Me and all the lurkers who support me in email, of course.
> On Nov 15, 2:41 pm, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Still, it gives us a laugh that you maintain that your failure to
> > grasp the concept of owning addresses without using them is
> > because someone else is not very bright.
>
> Who is this "us"? And of course the above is a gross
> misrepresentation of what Judith said, as you well know.
Gosh, was it by Judith? I don't think it can have been, because she
has made it quite clear that posting under a different nym is an evil
and despicable thing to do.
> A self-described Christian being deceitful and demeaning:
understand the accusation of demeaning either. Admittedly it might
not have been very nice of me to laugh at someone who says something
so silly, but I'm struggling to see what was deceitful or demeaning
about it. And it did make me laugh.
regards, Ian SMith
Justin
Nov 15, 2012, 11:07:31 AM11/15/12
to
Norman Wells
Nov 15, 2012, 11:39:44 AM11/15/12
to
Ian Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:41:56 +0000, I am not Paul Cumnmins
> <paul.c...@outlook.com> wrote:
> Do you really think if someone CAN use something then they MUST use
> it? What law mandates that a person must use everything they are able
> to use?
Well, one such law in a not wholly unrelated field is the Trade Marks
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:41:56 +0000, I am not Paul Cumnmins
> <paul.c...@outlook.com> wrote:
> Do you really think if someone CAN use something then they MUST use
> it? What law mandates that a person must use everything they are able
> to use?
Act 1994. If you don't put a registered trade mark to genuine use in
the UK within 5 years of the date of registration, its registration can
be revoked, and you lose it.
> I own a couple of domain names I do not use, and have never used. My
> company owns even more domain names it does not use and has never
> used. At least one of the domain names it does not use it purchased
> from someone who had never used it. You should not use those names
> even though the company that owns them does not - it owns them
> specifically so others will not use them.
>
> Is this really a difficult concept to grasp?
held with no intention of using them, particularly if they are solely
for the purposes of disrupting the legitimate activities of others, it
may be held that they were registered in bad faith and you may be
ordered to hand them over to those with a better right to them.
> Still, it gives us a laugh that you maintain that your failure to
> grasp the concept of owning addresses without using them is because
> someone else is not very bright.
>
> Carry on.
Not Dr Paul Cummins
Nov 15, 2012, 11:44:51 AM11/15/12
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:41:28 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk>
wrote:
I knew it would be too subtle for the fuckwits like you to appreciate
There is of course quite a difference between domain names and email addresses:
perhaps you did not realise that. Are you perhaps new to the web?
You appear to be suggesting that he "owns" the domain outlook.com: is that the
point you are trying to make?
Here is a clue: perhaps you did not spot the inverted commas around the word
owns : like this: "owns". Spot it now? Much too deep for you, was it?
Here it is again : Dr Paul Cummins has never used the email address because he
does not "own" it.
The email address paul.c...@outlook.com is not his to use - despite his
lies.
(Are you saying that emails sent to thefu...@astounding.org.uk are
delivered to you? Well I never.)
--
"Dr" Paul Cummins - Always a Wanker
Wasting everyone's time since 1981
---- If it's above this line, I didn't write it ----
wrote:
There is of course quite a difference between domain names and email addresses:
perhaps you did not realise that. Are you perhaps new to the web?
You appear to be suggesting that he "owns" the domain outlook.com: is that the
point you are trying to make?
Here is a clue: perhaps you did not spot the inverted commas around the word
owns : like this: "owns". Spot it now? Much too deep for you, was it?
Here it is again : Dr Paul Cummins has never used the email address because he
does not "own" it.
The email address paul.c...@outlook.com is not his to use - despite his
lies.
(Are you saying that emails sent to thefu...@astounding.org.uk are
delivered to you? Well I never.)
--
"Dr" Paul Cummins - Always a Wanker
Wasting everyone's time since 1981
---- If it's above this line, I didn't write it ----
totallyconfused
Nov 15, 2012, 11:52:21 AM11/15/12
to
On Nov 15, 4:45 pm, Not Dr Paul Cummins <paul.cumm...@outlook.com>
> The email address paul.cumm...@outlook.com is not his to use - despite his
> lies.
>
> (Are you saying that emails sent to thefuck...@astounding.org.uk are
>
> - Show quoted text -
Who is this 'Dr. Paul Cummins?
TC
> lies.
>
> (Are you saying that emails sent to thefuck...@astounding.org.uk are
> delivered to you? Well I never.)
>
> --
> "Dr" Paul Cummins - Always a Wanker
> Wasting everyone's time since 1981
>
> ---- If it's above this line, I didn't write it ----- Hide quoted text -
>
> --
> "Dr" Paul Cummins - Always a Wanker
> Wasting everyone's time since 1981
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Who is this 'Dr. Paul Cummins?
TC
Martin Brown
Nov 15, 2012, 12:05:07 PM11/15/12
to
On 15/11/2012 16:39, Norman Wells wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:41:56 +0000, I am not Paul Cumnmins
>> <paul.c...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you really think if someone CAN use something then they MUST use
>> it? What law mandates that a person must use everything they are able
>> to use?
>
> Well, one such law in a not wholly unrelated field is the Trade Marks
> Act 1994. If you don't put a registered trade mark to genuine use in
> the UK within 5 years of the date of registration, its registration can
> be revoked, and you lose it.
And if you don't remember to pay the domanin renewal fee you will lose
> Ian Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:41:56 +0000, I am not Paul Cumnmins
>> <paul.c...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you really think if someone CAN use something then they MUST use
>> it? What law mandates that a person must use everything they are able
>> to use?
>
> Well, one such law in a not wholly unrelated field is the Trade Marks
> Act 1994. If you don't put a registered trade mark to genuine use in
> the UK within 5 years of the date of registration, its registration can
> be revoked, and you lose it.
it, but so long as you have paid for it and don't let it lapse it is
yours. Cybersquatting on popular brandnames was common earlier in the
history of the internet before major businesses became net savvy.
>
>> I own a couple of domain names I do not use, and have never used. My
>> company owns even more domain names it does not use and has never
>> used. At least one of the domain names it does not use it purchased
>> from someone who had never used it. You should not use those names
>> even though the company that owns them does not - it owns them
>> specifically so others will not use them.
>>
>> Is this really a difficult concept to grasp?
>
> It's not as clear-cut as you may imagine. If the domain names are being
> held with no intention of using them, particularly if they are solely
> for the purposes of disrupting the legitimate activities of others, it
> may be held that they were registered in bad faith and you may be
> ordered to hand them over to those with a better right to them.
Equally they are often held by legitimate companies to prevent other
>> I own a couple of domain names I do not use, and have never used. My
>> company owns even more domain names it does not use and has never
>> used. At least one of the domain names it does not use it purchased
>> from someone who had never used it. You should not use those names
>> even though the company that owns them does not - it owns them
>> specifically so others will not use them.
>>
>> Is this really a difficult concept to grasp?
>
> It's not as clear-cut as you may imagine. If the domain names are being
> held with no intention of using them, particularly if they are solely
> for the purposes of disrupting the legitimate activities of others, it
> may be held that they were registered in bad faith and you may be
> ordered to hand them over to those with a better right to them.
dodgy organisations passing themselves off as imitators but with a
.co.uk or .com or .co suffix. Cybersquatting is pretty annoying.
Every UK town .co.uk has been nabbed by someone for instance.
And it is wise to be very careful typing in Google.com unless you have
very good AV or a sandbox - there are (possibly now were) some very
nasty malware sites just a character transposed typo away.
Using a domain name that is not yours to use to forge messages might
well land you in trouble with some perhaps most AUPs.
>
>> Still, it gives us a laugh that you maintain that your failure to
>> grasp the concept of owning addresses without using them is because
>> someone else is not very bright.
>>
>> Carry on.
>
> I think you need to reassess your certainty.
He is basically right though. Many large businesses do actually grab a
>> Still, it gives us a laugh that you maintain that your failure to
>> grasp the concept of owning addresses without using them is because
>> someone else is not very bright.
>>
>> Carry on.
>
> I think you need to reassess your certainty.
series of domains to guard against common misspellings and typos.
You can own intellectual property rights and still choose not to use
them. Just as you are not obliged to play every DVD or CD you own.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Not Dr Paul Cummins
Nov 15, 2012, 12:06:01 PM11/15/12
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 08:52:21 -0800 (PST), totallyconfused
<lisab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Who is this 'Dr. Paul Cummins?
In a nutshell: the laughing stock of uk usenet.
I do not know the details: but he has been caught out time and time again
making false statements: usually about his intellectual ability, his education,
professional qualifications, or what he does for work.
Invariably always untrue.
He used to sign himself "Dr Paul Cummins" - until it was shown that he wasn't a
Dr at all.
Fuckwit extraordinaire is quite appropriate.
<lisab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Who is this 'Dr. Paul Cummins?
I do not know the details: but he has been caught out time and time again
making false statements: usually about his intellectual ability, his education,
professional qualifications, or what he does for work.
Invariably always untrue.
He used to sign himself "Dr Paul Cummins" - until it was shown that he wasn't a
Dr at all.
Fuckwit extraordinaire is quite appropriate.
Percy Picacity
Nov 15, 2012, 12:06:49 PM11/15/12
to
email address is regarded as net abuse by most ISPs. However, if the
offender didn't know it was someone else's address they would probably
be let off with a warning provided they didn't do it again. Note, I do
not know who is the owner of the disputed outlook.com address, but it
would be easy to send an email with a secret in it and see who gets the
secret.
--
Percy Picacity
Percy Picacity
Nov 15, 2012, 12:09:20 PM11/15/12
to
On 2012-11-15 16:39:44 +0000, Norman Wells said:
> Ian Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:41:56 +0000, I am not Paul Cumnmins
>> <paul.c...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you really think if someone CAN use something then they MUST use
>> it? What law mandates that a person must use everything they are able
>> to use?
>
> Well, one such law in a not wholly unrelated field is the Trade Marks
> Act 1994. If you don't put a registered trade mark to genuine use in
> the UK within 5 years of the date of registration, its registration can
> be revoked, and you lose it.
>
>> I own a couple of domain names I do not use, and have never used. My
>> company owns even more domain names it does not use and has never
>> used. At least one of the domain names it does not use it purchased
>> from someone who had never used it. You should not use those names
>> even though the company that owns them does not - it owns them
>> specifically so others will not use them.
>>
>> Is this really a difficult concept to grasp?
>
> It's not as clear-cut as you may imagine. If the domain names are
> being held with no intention of using them, particularly if they are
> solely for the purposes of disrupting the legitimate activities of
> others, it may be held that they were registered in bad faith and you
> may be ordered to hand them over to those with a better right to them.
There is money to be made out of registering likely typos of big
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:41:56 +0000, I am not Paul Cumnmins
>> <paul.c...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you really think if someone CAN use something then they MUST use
>> it? What law mandates that a person must use everything they are able
>> to use?
>
> Well, one such law in a not wholly unrelated field is the Trade Marks
> Act 1994. If you don't put a registered trade mark to genuine use in
> the UK within 5 years of the date of registration, its registration can
> be revoked, and you lose it.
>
>> I own a couple of domain names I do not use, and have never used. My
>> company owns even more domain names it does not use and has never
>> used. At least one of the domain names it does not use it purchased
>> from someone who had never used it. You should not use those names
>> even though the company that owns them does not - it owns them
>> specifically so others will not use them.
>>
>> Is this really a difficult concept to grasp?
>
> It's not as clear-cut as you may imagine. If the domain names are
> being held with no intention of using them, particularly if they are
> solely for the purposes of disrupting the legitimate activities of
> others, it may be held that they were registered in bad faith and you
> may be ordered to hand them over to those with a better right to them.
websites and the registrars would probably be happy for a company to
sit on the likely ones unless someone had a very good reason for
wanting to use them legitimately.
--
Percy Picacity
Justin
Nov 15, 2012, 12:18:01 PM11/15/12
to
On Nov 15, 6:06 pm, Not Dr Paul Cummins <paul.cumm...@outlook.com>
wrote:
Hagfish lies ahain, Dave was right.
wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 08:52:21 -0800 (PST), totallyconfused
>
>
paul.c...@outlook.com
Nov 15, 2012, 12:18:56 PM11/15/12
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:06:49 +0000, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid>
wrote:
<snip>
>I don't think there is any doubt that posting using someone else's
>email address is regarded as net abuse by most ISPs. However, if the
>offender didn't know it was someone else's address they would probably
>be let off with a warning provided they didn't do it again. Note, I do
>not know who is the owner of the disputed outlook.com address, but it
>would be easy to send an email with a secret in it and see who gets the
>secret.
I can assure you that the address:
paul.cummins (at) outlook.com
is owned by me.
wrote:
<snip>
>I don't think there is any doubt that posting using someone else's
>email address is regarded as net abuse by most ISPs. However, if the
>offender didn't know it was someone else's address they would probably
>be let off with a warning provided they didn't do it again. Note, I do
>not know who is the owner of the disputed outlook.com address, but it
>would be easy to send an email with a secret in it and see who gets the
>secret.
paul.cummins (at) outlook.com
is owned by me.
Justin
Nov 15, 2012, 12:19:56 PM11/15/12
to
On Nov 15, 6:06 pm, Not Dr Paul Cummins <paul.cumm...@outlook.com>
wrote:
Hagfish lies again, Dave was right.
wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 08:52:21 -0800 (PST), totallyconfused
>
>
Ian Smith
Nov 15, 2012, 1:47:59 PM11/15/12
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:39:44 -0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:41:56 +0000, I am not Paul Cumnmins
> > <paul.c...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> > I own a couple of domain names I do not use, and have never used.
> > My company owns even more domain names it does not use and has
> > never used. At least one of the domain names it does not use it
> > purchased from someone who had never used it. You should not use
> > those names even though the company that owns them does not - it
> > owns them specifically so others will not use them.
> >
> > Is this really a difficult concept to grasp?
>
> It's not as clear-cut as you may imagine. If the domain names are
> being held with no intention of using them, particularly if they
> are solely for the purposes of disrupting the legitimate activities
> of others, it may be held that they were registered in bad faith
> and you may be ordered to hand them over to those with a better
> right to them.
That's a different issue - that is not about holding domain names you
> Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:41:56 +0000, I am not Paul Cumnmins
> > <paul.c...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> > I own a couple of domain names I do not use, and have never used.
> > My company owns even more domain names it does not use and has
> > never used. At least one of the domain names it does not use it
> > purchased from someone who had never used it. You should not use
> > those names even though the company that owns them does not - it
> > owns them specifically so others will not use them.
> >
> > Is this really a difficult concept to grasp?
>
> It's not as clear-cut as you may imagine. If the domain names are
> being held with no intention of using them, particularly if they
> are solely for the purposes of disrupting the legitimate activities
> of others, it may be held that they were registered in bad faith
> and you may be ordered to hand them over to those with a better
> right to them.
don't intend to use, that is disrupting teh legitimate activities of
others.
Norman Wells
Nov 15, 2012, 1:53:50 PM11/15/12
to
use your intellectual property. There are none if you don't use your
CDs or DVDs.
Ian Smith
Nov 15, 2012, 2:05:44 PM11/15/12
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:53:50 -0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> Martin Brown wrote:
> >
> > He is basically right though. Many large businesses do actually
> > grab a series of domains to guard against common misspellings and
> > typos.
> >
> > You can own intellectual property rights and still choose not to
> > use them. Just as you are not obliged to play every DVD or CD you
> > own.
>
> No, not 'just as' because in many areas there are sanctions if you
> don't use your intellectual property. There are none if you don't
> use your CDs or DVDs.
and what sanctions do you think apply to people that don't use every
> Martin Brown wrote:
> >
> > He is basically right though. Many large businesses do actually
> > grab a series of domains to guard against common misspellings and
> > typos.
> >
> > You can own intellectual property rights and still choose not to
> > use them. Just as you are not obliged to play every DVD or CD you
> > own.
>
> No, not 'just as' because in many areas there are sanctions if you
> don't use your intellectual property. There are none if you don't
> use your CDs or DVDs.
email address they own?
By my reckoning there are roughly 2E117 email addresses I own but
don't use - what do you think my sentence will be, if the authorities
catch up with me?
regards, Ian SMith
Percy Picacity
Nov 15, 2012, 2:32:14 PM11/15/12
to
or not, has any right to complain. As indeed you pointed out.
--
Percy Picacity
Norman Wells
Nov 15, 2012, 2:38:20 PM11/15/12
to
Ian Smith
Nov 15, 2012, 2:42:03 PM11/15/12
to
not own a certain email address because he had never used it make?
Dr Paul Cummins
Nov 15, 2012, 2:49:20 PM11/15/12
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:05:44 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk>
wrote:
<snip>
>By my reckoning there are roughly 2E117 email addresses I own but
>don't use - what do you think my sentence will be, if the authorities
>catch up with me?
>
>regards, Ian SMith
Did you include: ian.smith.is.an.ob...@astounding.org.uk in the
count?
wrote:
<snip>
>By my reckoning there are roughly 2E117 email addresses I own but
>don't use - what do you think my sentence will be, if the authorities
>catch up with me?
>
>regards, Ian SMith
count?
Ian Smith
Nov 15, 2012, 3:06:29 PM11/15/12
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:49:20 +0000, Dr Paul Cummins <paul.c...@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:05:44 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >By my reckoning there are roughly 2E117 email addresses I own but
> >don't use - what do you think my sentence will be, if the
> >authorities catch up with me?
>
>
Yes, thank you.
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:05:44 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >By my reckoning there are roughly 2E117 email addresses I own but
> >don't use - what do you think my sentence will be, if the
> >authorities catch up with me?
>
>
Dave - Cyclists VOR
Nov 15, 2012, 3:23:11 PM11/15/12
to
--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton, of Lancaster
University, wrote in an interim assessment of the Understanding Walking
and Cycling study. "For them, cycling is a bit embarrassing, they fail
to see its purpose, and have no interest in integrating it into their
lives, certainly on a regular basis."
not Dr Paul Cummins
Nov 15, 2012, 4:45:13 PM11/15/12
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:42:03 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk>
wrote:
<snip>
>So how much sense did the OPs implication that a certain person could
>not own a certain email address because he had never used it make?
In the case of an outlook,com address: every sense.
I am sorry that you had not realised there were such things and you thought
that people had to register and "own" a domain name before they could use
relevant addresses.
Unless he like you, is so fuckwitted that he would register outlook.com email
addresses and not use them.
He has not used it - because it is not his.
You may not have noticed that it is in fact an outlook.com domain.
You have to register such specific email addresses if you wish to use them.
He has not registered it. He has not "used" it - because it is not his to
"use".
HTH
HAND
wrote:
<snip>
>So how much sense did the OPs implication that a certain person could
>not own a certain email address because he had never used it make?
I am sorry that you had not realised there were such things and you thought
that people had to register and "own" a domain name before they could use
relevant addresses.
Unless he like you, is so fuckwitted that he would register outlook.com email
addresses and not use them.
He has not used it - because it is not his.
You may not have noticed that it is in fact an outlook.com domain.
You have to register such specific email addresses if you wish to use them.
He has not registered it. He has not "used" it - because it is not his to
"use".
HTH
HAND
0 new messages