CABLE BOX DESCRAMBLER PLANS ((LEGAL)),.,.,,.,,,,,,. 7063
Windupd0ll
>From: rex...@dsafdsgf.com
>Date: 2/25/01 3:35 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <97aqmg$q...@news-central.tiac.net>
>
>LEGAL CABLE TV DE-SCRAMBLER
>
>
>
>Want to watch Sporting Events?--Movies?--Pay-Per-View??
>
>
>
>*This is the Famous R-O Shack TV Descrambler
>
>You can assemble it from Radio Shack parts for about $12 to $15.
>
>
>
>We Send You:
>
>1, E-Z To follow Assembly Instructions.
>
>2. E-Z To read Original Drawings.
>
>3. Total Parts List.
>
>
>
>**** PLUS SOMETHING NEW YOU MUST HAVE! ****
>
>Something you can't do without.
>
>
>
>THE UP-TO-DATE 6 PAGE REPORT:
>
>USING A DESCRAMBLER LEGALLY
>
>
>
>Warning: You should not build a TV Descrambler without
>
>reading this report first.
>
>
>
>Frequently Asked Questions--CABLE TV DESCRAMBLER
>
>
>
>Q: Will the descrambler work on Fiber, TCI, Jarrod
>
>and satellite systems?
>
>A: The answer is YES. In respect to satellite,
>
>you just get more stuff! There is one exception:
>
>The descrambler will not work with DSS satellite.
>
>
>
>Q: Do I need a converter box?
>
>A: This plan works with or without a converter box.
>
>Specific instructions are included in the plans for each!
>
>Q: Can the cable company detect that I have the descrambler?
>
>
>
>A: No, the signal descrambles right at the box and does
>
>not move back through the line!
>
>
>
>Q: Do I have to alter my existing cable system,
>
>television or VCR?
>
>A: The answer is no!
>
>
>
>Q: Does this work with my remote control?
>
>A: The answer is yes. The descrambler is
>
>manually controlled--but very easy to use!
>
>
>
>Q: Can you email me the plans?
>
>A: No the program comes with an easy to follow picture guide.
>
>
>
>Q: Does this work everywhere across the country?
>
>A: Yes, everywhere in the USA plus England,
>
>Brazil, Canada and other countries!
>
>
>
>Q: Is this deal guaranteed?
>
>A: Yes, if you are unhappy for any reason we will refund your money.
>
>
>
>Q: When I order, when will I get my package?
>
>A: We mail out all orders within 24 hours of receiving them.
>
>
>
>Q: How much does it cost to get the instruction
>
>plans, the easy to follow diagram, and most
>
>important of all the "Using a Descrambler LEGALLY Report".
>
>A: You get the complete 6 page report and instruction package all for
>just--$10
Ok frank.....this is a real spam and it is your cue!!!!!!!!!! LMAO
http://www.made2smile.com/heart/miracles/miracles.htm
Keep your butts out!!!!!!!!
Janet
mountainwoman
Deb
mountainwoman
"Windupd0ll" <windu...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20010225164911...@ng-ce1.aol.com...
Lemming
wrote:
FFS. I use a server which blocks almost all SPAM. I wouldn't see it
at all unless some pillock quotes it. By all means slag off the
spammers, but please learn to trim the spam, otherwise you just spread
their crap even further.
Lemming
--
Curiosity *may* have killed Schrodinger's cat.
Lemming
<karenessR...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>STFUAGALYOP
I understood everything up to "OP".
Karen
"Lemming" <l3m...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> FFS...
Lemming
I've thought about this some more. I'm guessing, but I don't think
one of these will be too far off the mark for the "OP": -
"Overbearing Pillock" or "Obnoxious Pratt" or "'Orrible Pig" (mix and
match as appropriate).
Anyway, even if these are wrong, I get the gist. Basically you are
saying you like it when people quote 130 lines of SPAM to make an
unfunny one-line remark. I guess it's pointless to ask if you
remember the never ending September of 1993[1].
Or perhaps it's because I dared to disagree with you about the
nicodemon a little while ago? No wait, it was you who disagreed with
me. Hmm ... it can't be that then.
I'll be the first to admit I *have* made some pretty prattish posts,
but this wasn't one of them. Go and do a search on google (deja is
dead by the way - I guess you didn't notice) I'm sure you'll come up
with something better.
Then come back and take the piss out of me all you like, at least
you'll have some decent ammo. As long as it keeps you from smoking
that's fine by me.
[1] The September 1993 is described here: -
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/September-that-never-ended.html
Karen
"Lemming" wrote
> I've thought about this some more.
That's excellent news :o) At least during all the time you were thinking
about it you weren't pouncing on all AS3's minor netiquette transgressors...
> Anyway, even if these are wrong, I get the gist. Basically you are
> saying you like it when people quote 130 lines of SPAM to make an
> unfunny one-line remark.
Yawn, do I really need to spell it out? Basically I thought your post was
rude and obnoxious. We can't all be as sophisticated and net savvy as you
are, that's not a criteria for participating in AS3.
> I guess it's pointless to ask if you
> remember the never ending September of 1993[1].
I remember September 93 VERY well. It did indeed seem never ending... but it
was worth the wait, my daughter was born on 27th of that very month. No idea
what your link's about though nor any geeky desire to follow it and find
out. I hardly think Janet's post was going to spark any major usenet
emergency but there again, I could be wrong, perhaps you've saved us all and
I'm just not grateful enough.
> Or perhaps it's because I dared to disagree with you about the
> nicodemon a little while ago? No wait, it was you who disagreed with
> me. Hmm ... it can't be that then.
My recollection is that you were in the process of lynching yet another new
poster and when I pointed out to no-one in particular that personally I
found an idea in his website valuable you predictably hit back in with
smart-arse arguments and contradictions.
> I'll be the first to admit I *have* made some pretty prattish posts,
> but this wasn't one of them. Go and do a search on google (deja is
> dead by the way - I guess you didn't notice) I'm sure you'll come up
> with something better.
I'm sure there's absolutely no need for me to waste my time digging out
evidence of your prattishness Lemming. You do it so well yourself.
> Then come back and take the piss out of me all you like, at least
> you'll have some decent ammo. As long as it keeps you from smoking
> that's fine by me.
Sorry, haven't got time for that game these days. I'm sure you'll find lots
of other kids who want to play though. Just remember not to be too rough and
to let the others get a word in once in a while. They may not all be as big
or clever as you but they have just as much a right to be in the playground.
K
Quit smoking 2 years, 2 months, 3 weeks, 2 days, 22 hours ago. 16,338-1
cigarettes not smoked, saving £2,973.60 at 1998 prices.
Windupd0ll
>emergency but there again, I could be wrong,
(singing like Britney Spears) Oops!!!! I did it again!!!!!!
Hey you guys, look at it this way, how many more netiquette mistakes to I
really have left to make? I mean, I have been here less than a week and I
think I have made the alarm go off quite a bit already!
I think I will accept the label of the naughty netiquette fugitive and rightly
so!!!!!!!!!!!!! I never read instructions....I hate user's manuals.....I
confess!!!! BUT....looking at all of the broken eggs on the floor already, the
carton should be about empty by now, shouldn't it? Besides!! It is always good
to revisit old POLICY wounds and see if there is any reaction if they are
re-salted LOL.
=)
Lemming
<karenessR...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>"Lemming" wrote
>
>> I've thought about this some more.
>
>That's excellent news :o) At least during all the time you were thinking
>about it you weren't pouncing on all AS3's minor netiquette transgressors...
Never mind, I'm sure I'll make up for lost time somehow.
>> Anyway, even if these are wrong, I get the gist. Basically you are
>> saying you like it when people quote 130 lines of SPAM to make an
>> unfunny one-line remark.
>
>Yawn, do I really need to spell it out? Basically I thought your post was
>rude and obnoxious. We can't all be as sophisticated and net savvy as you
>are, that's not a criteria for participating in AS3.
Yes, but ... what *did* "OP" really stand for? I offered some
suggestions, but you snipped them without confirming or denying any of
them. Honestly, these usenet acronyms are all very well, but there is
absolutely no point in you making them up and then not telling people
what they mean.
As to my post being obnoxious - perhaps it was. I felt at the time
that it was warranted. However, I ask you again as you seem keen to
avoid the question - do you feel it is ok to post 130 lines of SPAM in
order to post a one-line unfunny remark? Most people work that one
out fairly quickly. Some people need a minor LARTing to set them on
their way. And if you check that posters recent posts, you will see
that the LARTing did in fact have the desired effect.
>> I guess it's pointless to ask if you
>> remember the never ending September of 1993[1].
>
>I remember September 93 VERY well. It did indeed seem never ending... but it
>was worth the wait, my daughter was born on 27th of that very month. No idea
>what your link's about though nor any geeky desire to follow it and find
>out.
I do think it's tragic when people are so closed in their thinking
that they aren't prepared to take a few seconds to look at something
which might expand their limited knowledge, for fear it may expose
them to some idea which may threaten their cosy mindset. Beware of
geeks bearing gifts, eh? Such a shame.
>I hardly think Janet's post was going to spark any major usenet
>emergency but there again, I could be wrong, perhaps you've saved us all and
>I'm just not grateful enough.
>
>> Or perhaps it's because I dared to disagree with you about the
>> nicodemon a little while ago? No wait, it was you who disagreed with
>> me. Hmm ... it can't be that then.
>
>My recollection is that you were in the process of lynching yet another new
>poster and when I pointed out to no-one in particular that personally I
>found an idea in his website valuable you predictably hit back in with
>smart-arse arguments and contradictions.
Then you have a rather poor memory - it was only a couple of weeks
ago. Since you don't follow links provided for you I won't bother to
find the thread for you on google. I'll summarise instead.
1) Smokeworm, posting as someone other than himself, pretended to find
a link to http://www.smokeworm.com.
2) A number of us posted to call him a spammer. (Incorrectly as it
turned out, and for which apologies were due and forthcoming).
(/me waves at smokeworm. No worries mate - we've done that one, eh?)
3) You then posted to say that the "smokeworm" itself was a brilliant
concept.
4) I posted a followup, saying I didn't feel the smokeworm was all
that great, explaining why I felt that way, contrasting it with the
nicodemon, and ended the post with "ALL this is IMHO and YMMV of
course :)" At no point did I attack you personally, I simply
expressed my considered opinion.
5) You responded to my post, evidently taking offence to the fact that
I had dared to disagree with you. At my "YMMV", you posted: "Well
thank you so much for granting me the right to an opinion."
6) My reply was: "Perhaps you'll do the same for me?"
7) You responded with: "And perhaps I'm not in the mood for a pissing
competition with a smug, patronising git. Go lecture someone else with
your pompous half-baked theories."
8) I exited the thread with ":-p".
Far from defending some poor newby, you were simply attacking someone
who dared to disagree with you.
>> I'll be the first to admit I *have* made some pretty prattish posts,
>> but this wasn't one of them. Go and do a search on google (deja is
>> dead by the way - I guess you didn't notice) I'm sure you'll come up
>> with something better.
>
>I'm sure there's absolutely no need for me to waste my time digging out
>evidence of your prattishness Lemming. You do it so well yourself.
Why thank you, that's very kind of you to say so.
>> Then come back and take the piss out of me all you like, at least
>> you'll have some decent ammo. As long as it keeps you from smoking
>> that's fine by me.
>
>Sorry, haven't got time for that game these days.
I just *love* irony, especially when it's unconscious.
>I'm sure you'll find lots
>of other kids who want to play though. Just remember not to be too rough and
>to let the others get a word in once in a while. They may not all be as big
>or clever as you but they have just as much a right to be in the playground.
I *work* with almost all of the kids. I only *play* with the nasty
ones.
Lemming
wrote:
>Hey you guys, look at it this way, how many more netiquette mistakes to I
>really have left to make? I mean, I have been here less than a week and I
>think I have made the alarm go off quite a bit already!
But you're learning, right?
Anyway, apologies for being quite so rude as I was in my post to you.
By way of explanation, one of the reasons I use the cis.dfn.de news
server is their superb anti-spam policy, backed up by very effective
spam removal. But they only remove the original spam, followups
remain. So if you follow up to the spam and quote it all, everyone in
views the spammers message. There is absolutely NO objection to
following up with a "FUCK OFF" without quoting :)
But I still shouldn't have been rude. Apologies.
Billi
<l3m...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> I *work* with almost all of the kids. I only *play* with the nasty
> ones.
>
> Lemming
My sweet Lemming, will you marry me and bear....oops, time to apply to
the Mormon church for admission.
Barring marriage, to which Mrs. Lemming will undoubtedly object
strongly, will you "play" with me too? :-)
Lemming
>Barring marriage, to which Mrs. Lemming will undoubtedly object
>strongly, will you "play" with me too? :-)
Only if you are *really* nasty :)
Windupd0ll
>following up with a "FUCK OFF" without quoting :)
>
>But I still shouldn't have been rude. Apologies.
>
>Lemming
>--
That is okay Lemming, I must not have read that one because I didn't even know
there was a fight about it all and me and stuff till I saw my name in the flame
fest!!!
Am I famous now? One thing I must warn you in advance of....I will not allow
use of my name and likeness when you take your turn on the Jerry Springer show.
A person must draw the line somewhere!
Even though I missed it (hahaha sometimes being a blonde is fabulous!!!!!)
apology accepted.
And P.S.......what is a git?
Lemming
wrote:
>That is okay Lemming, I must not have read that one because I didn't even know
>there was a fight about it all and me and stuff till I saw my name in the flame
>fest!!!
Oh boy, the irony! That's wunnerful ... simply wunnerful :) Karen
gets herself all bent out of shape, and you haven't even seen it. Oh
man, I'm laughing so hard the tears are running down my legs.
>Am I famous now? One thing I must warn you in advance of....I will not allow
>use of my name and likeness when you take your turn on the Jerry Springer show.
Hey c'mon doll - you're not *that* famous. Not yet anyway :)
>apology accepted.
Thanks - that was the important bit.
>And P.S.......what is a git?
Opinions vary, modesty forbids and all that ... :)
Karen
"Lemming" wrote
>there is absolutely no point in you making them up and then not telling
people
> what they mean.
YOU might not SEE the point, that doesn't mean there isn't one. It's about
perspective.
> As to my post being obnoxious - perhaps it was. I felt at the time
> that it was warranted. However, I ask you again as you seem keen to
> avoid the question - do you feel it is ok to post 130 lines of SPAM in
> order to post a one-line unfunny remark?
OK, if you really must press me on the matter, I'd better bestow an opinion.
It would be churlish not to. Here goes. Take careful note. On the spectrum
between a fantasmagorically marvellous contribution to the good of the
universe and an evil act of wanton destruction, I hereby pronounce that
inadvertently posting spam is somewhere in the middle. Where exactly it
lines up and how funny the remark was, once again these things are a matter
of perspective.
When the penny finally drops, even you will realise that your point of view
isn't the only one. Let's hope that epiphany comes sooner rather than later.
>Most people work that one
> out fairly quickly. Some people need a minor LARTing to set them on
> their way. And if you check that posters recent posts, you will see
> that the LARTing did in fact have the desired effect.
Tee hee, it seems that she didn't even read it. But if the delusion of being
so influential makes you feel good and stay quit, far be it from me to burst
your bubble.
> >> I guess it's pointless to ask if you
> >> remember the never ending September of 1993[1].
> >
> >I remember September 93 VERY well. It did indeed seem never ending... but
it
> >was worth the wait, my daughter was born on 27th of that very month. No
idea
> >what your link's about though nor any geeky desire to follow it and find
> >out.
>
> I do think it's tragic when people are so closed in their thinking
> that they aren't prepared to take a few seconds to look at something
> which might expand their limited knowledge, for fear it may expose
> them to some idea which may threaten their cosy mindset. Beware of
> geeks bearing gifts, eh? Such a shame.
OK, I bit. Wish I hadn't now, the link just led to a tired unoriginal snipe
at aol users. Still, if feeling superior helps you stay quit, keep it up.
<SNIP tedious interpretation of elderly posts, demonstrating once again that
we have different perspectives.>
>At no point did I attack you personally, I simply
> expressed my considered opinion.
I seem to remember it was your arrogant tone of voice which pushed my
buttons, rather than the fact you didn't share my enthusiasm for the
metaphor.
<snip more history and point scoring>
> I *work* with almost all of the kids. I only *play* with the nasty
> ones.
And of course your view of who's 'nice' and who's 'nasty' is always the
'correct' one. Sigh, maybe you'll get it one day.
Lemming
<karenessR...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>When the penny finally drops, even you will realise that your point of view
>isn't the only one. Let's hope that epiphany comes sooner rather than later.
Oh, such irony.
>Tee hee, it seems that she didn't even read it. But if the delusion of being
>so influential makes you feel good and stay quit, far be it from me to burst
>your bubble.
Irony again.
>OK, I bit. Wish I hadn't now, the link just led to a tired unoriginal snipe
>at aol users.
Is that what you think it is? Really? Oh dear.
>Still, if feeling superior helps you stay quit, keep it up.
Yet more irony. Did I tell you how much I love irony?
><SNIP tedious interpretation of elderly posts, demonstrating once again that
>we have different perspectives.>
Oh, such hypocrisy. (loss, loss)
>I seem to remember it was your arrogant tone of voice which pushed my
>buttons, rather than the fact you didn't share my enthusiasm for the
>metaphor.
Oh, such amnesia.
><snip more history and point scoring>
Oh, such sophistry.
>> I *work* with almost all of the kids. I only *play* with the nasty
>> ones.
>
>And of course your view of who's 'nice' and who's 'nasty' is always the
>'correct' one. Sigh, maybe you'll get it one day.
Yet more irony.
Do let's play again.