|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: cliftoclifto
Date: Mar 12, 2007 23:51
Mike Flugennock wrote:
> Y'know, I wish I could remember the URL at El Reg reviewing a replica of
> a classic black handset from a classic Western Electric desk phone with
> the classic curly cord -- except that instead of a regular modular plug,
> it has a plug for a standard mobile phone headset input.
>
> The handset is an exact match for the old Western Electric, right down
> to the kind of heavy plastic used. I was getting to think how cool it'd
> be to be standing on the subway platform, having my mobe ring, reach
> into my coat and pull out this funky old WE handset.
Without a cord, that would make the quintessential Bluetooth accessory.
|
| |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
Author:
Date: Mar 12, 2007 23:48
On 2007-03-13, Etaoin Shrdlu gmail.com> wrote:> Le 13 Mar 2007, The Kat katxyzkave.net> a écrit :
>>>
>>
>> Holy CRAP!
>>
>> Spammers AND anti-spammers alike have repeatedly said there is NO law
>> against spamming, but Lindtard now says it IS illegal to spam (realizing,
>> I'm SURE, that it can be proven HE is a spammer).
>
> Not only that, but he’s asking for a trial by jury!!! (¶105 on P.7)
Has Blowhardt been suggested for Balsa Gavel yet?
--
"Find spammers. Bash skulls."
- Mission Statement of the Anti-Spam Taskforce
"If it spams, clobber it until it stops spamming."
- The Final Ultimate Solution to the Spam Problem
|
| |
|
| |
no comments
|
|
|
Author: DarkFiberDarkFiber
Date: Mar 12, 2007 22:56
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 09:05:54 -0500, spammers_lie wrote:
> Mike Flugennock stinkers.org> wrote:
> >>Thane wrote:
>>> There's a current spam run addying M$ products and reporting his to M$
>>> gets the autobounce from the spam filters. The piracy@ address seems to
>>> be ineffective now. Any advice?
>>>
>>>
>
> Yep, I quit notifying $Msloth a while ago. Will not bother anymore.
|
| Show full article (1.13Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author:
Date: Mar 12, 2007 22:52
"Geoff Brozny" glorb.columbus.oh.us> altered the spacetime
fabric by disgorging news:et3vqa$cmb$1@posting.glorb.com:
>
> "Marc Bissonnette" _/internalysis.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns98F122CD5D026dragnetinternalysisc@216.196.97.131...>>
>> He must have an incredibly high pain tolerance.
>>
>> How else...
|
| Show full article (2.43Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author:
Date: Mar 12, 2007 22:33
Le 13 Mar 2007, The Kat katxyzkave.net> a
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Nobody ImportantNobody Important
Date: Mar 12, 2007 20:43
>>
>> Where is Patrica? If this is true, it marks a new low in spammer and spammer
>> attorney behavior, not to mention intelligence. This is like a really bad movie.
>> Another epiphany of stupidity that will eventually play itself out.
>
> I've had a request from the defendants not to discuss in a public forum,
> so I won't, and request others heed that as well.
I hope they manage to keep a clamp on Ferguson, he basically forced
this to happen with his "pay me or I file" and I'll do this, and this,
and I'll claim this and that, and I'll use this case law and that one,
and I'll tell you everything I plan to do well before I do it....etc.
This suit is a direct result of that mouthing off, if he was smart he
would have just filed quietly. But then again, Huey has one thing
right, the word smart isn't often used in the same sentance as
Ferguson.
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: John LJohn L
Date: Mar 12, 2007 20:39
>>> Y'know, I wish I could remember the URL at El Reg reviewing a replica
>>> of a classic black handset from a classic Western Electric desk phone
>>> with the classic curly cord -- except that instead of a regular
>>> modular plug, it has a plug for a standard mobile phone headset input.
>I've seen better: someone figure out how to put cellphone electronics
>right into an old telephone. Even got the mechanical ringer and
>rotary dial to work.
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: Kelly Bert ManningKelly Bert Manning
Date: Mar 12, 2007 20:31
>> (Perhaps Linhardt should hire Brad J. to do some detective work for him.
>> Didn't he prove CONCLUSIVELY that Morely is really SANFORD WALLACE?!?!?!)
>
> Dunno why but I have a feeling this is gonna come back to bite Linstupid
> right in the tooshie.
Foolstain managed to avoid paying costs for the people he sued.
What are the chances of Lindhart wiggling out of paying costs on this one?
Foolstain never revealed who was funding his frivolous suit, but in this
case Lindhart and 360insight own responsibility and can't deny it.
Doesn't he get that it is easy to document that he sends unsolicited mail?
As for spammers objecting to being documented publicly as spammers, we've
seen that before. At least one judge noted that sending unsolicited e-mail
is a fact about which reasonable people can reach different conclusions,
including deciding that the sender is a spammer. (Cyberpromo vs someone?)
Where is that huge "silent majority" of voluntariy opted in suckers who
just can't wait to get their next spam from Lindhart? I'm surprised that
ISP's haven't started unblocking him to stop the tsunami of complaints from
outraged subscribers.
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
Author: NFN SmithNFN Smith
Date: Mar 12, 2007 20:10
Rev. Beergoggles wrote:
> NFN Smith wrote:
>> Buss Error wrote:
>>> Mark Ferguson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just learn to write refused on it and place it back in your box and
>>>> then as if by magic the carrier will remove and dispose of it.
>> As noted, that doesn't always work.
>
> Just check to see if it contains a postmarked return envelope.
> Stuff all the material back into that envelope, seal, and place
> in the post. I believe in letting the sender do the recycling. :)
>
But for that, you have to open it. You can only refuse, if unopened.
(If I can tell that there's a pre-paid BRE, then I'm very enthusiastic
about getting the return back on the sender's dime.)
Thus, if it's 4th class and there's no BRE, the only thing that refusing
delivery does is to make USPS discard it, rather than discarding it
yourself.
|
| Show full article (1.20Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author: huey.callisonhuey.callison
Date: Mar 12, 2007 19:50
Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
> How can you people be discussing the things you read in this dead link?
--
Huey
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
