ATTENTION: SPAMMER(s)
Catherine Hampton
Chris Garland (chr...@village.ios.com) wrote:
: If you are an uninterest party who just happens to be spamming a.r.c.b.c:
: shame on you! Grow up; computers cost a lot of money -- does your mommy
: know how badly you're abusing it?
This option. This spam has hit seven newsgroups total, and if there
is any one of them that's the main target, it's news.admin.net-abuse.misc.
Since the one consistent element in these randomly-generated messages
is a bogus NNTP posting host header pointing at a machine used by a
moderator who has p*ssed off several net.loons, the betting is that
this is an attempt to get that moderator in trouble and/or get
various sites to refuse his cancels.
There is some possibility that this is also a loon who hates Christians
and/or Christianity, but IMHO it's more likely that that side of things
is a red herring to mislead people looking for the perpetrator.
It's a little insulting to admit we're probably irrelevant side-issues
to this creep, but I think that's the case. <sigh>
Catherine
Chris Garland
Hello Spam-people:
Perhaps you think you are amusing -- you are not.
Perhaps you think that somehow you will put an end to negative comments
about the ICC. If that is your motive, I'm here to tell you that negative
comments about the ICC will only stop when the negative issues *in* the
ICC are stopped.
If you are an ICC member or members: shame on you! Censoring information
only adds to the criticism that the ICC is a cult. When did Jesus EVER
attempt to drown out his critics?
If you are a former member: shame on you! Get a life, for God's sake. If
you can't participate in a discussion, then get off line.
If you are an uninterest party who just happens to be spamming a.r.c.b.c:
shame on you! Grow up; computers cost a lot of money -- does your mommy
know how badly you're abusing it?
Rest assured, whoever you are -- you are about to be discovered. We WILL
find out who you are, and you will be publicly censured.
KNOCK IT OFF.
EOshiro
I think it's fairly safe to say that Chris speaks for all of us.
(Or maybe that's too weird a concept--everyone agreeing on something.)
However, I doubt his message will ever reach his intended recipient. (I
meant that 2 ways: (1) I doubt he will ever read it, and (2) if he does, I
doubt it would change his heart.)
DJRTX
In article <4u6ed3$s...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, eos...@aol.com (EOshiro)
writes:
>I think it's fairly safe to say that Chris speaks for all of us.
>
>(Or maybe that's too weird a concept--everyone agreeing on something.)
Egads, you're right . . . we are in agreement!!! Yet, who knows . . .
stranger things could happen. :-) [no reference to spamming intended]
Joanne
Chris Garland
And to think, all it took was SPAM, (the wonderful food). Humbling.