William Elliot wrote:

Insufficient capitalization. Forex trading is already highly
leveraged. Insufficient capitalization just magnifies the potential
problems you can face. If you read about the famous and big name
traders, they never use more than 1%% - 2%% of their trading capital on
a position. Get out a calculator and let's see... 1%% of $10,000 is
$100. So as a position trader who might have a stop-loss order of 100
pips, you can only trade one mini lot of one currency pair for each
$10,000 in your trading account. That is, if you want to trade like
the pros. Do you have $10,000 in your account? Why do forex dealers
boldly advertise you can start trading with only $250 then? Because
they are in business to make money, and if they can convince you to
commit trading errors, they stand a much better chance that...

Per the newsgroups (descriptions) file:

free.pt Base da hierarquia free.pt (discussao administrativa).
free.pt.gay Discussao para gays
free.pt.gay-les-bi-tr.jovens Apoio nao-
free.pt.lesbica Discussao para lesbicas
free.pt.transgender free.pt.gay Discussao para transgenders

It appears that this sub-hierarchy is for discussions in Portuguese - i.e. a
TEXT group. Yet, I've caught binaries being transferred through there -
about 2GB/day (6,000 messages averaging 350kB in size). Please remember
that some of us are TEXT-ONLY servers. A message to the abuse mailbox of
the originating server has been dispatched.

Headers from one of the detected messages:

Path:
news.snarked.org!news.neu.edu.cn!news.shec6.edu.cn!news.isoc.lu!news.nonexis
te.net!news.nonexiste.net!peer3.news.newnet.co.uk!89.250.64.32.MISMATCH!tran
sit5.hitnews.eu!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft...

Archive-name: usenet/spam-faq
Posting-Frequency: weekly
Last-modified: 1998/11/10
URL: http://www.killfile.org/faqs/spam.html
Maintainer: tskirvin@killfile.org (Tim Skirvin)
Original-Author: clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca (Chris Lewis)

Current Spam thresholds and guidelines.

This article is intended to describe the current consensus spam thresholds
and ensure that the definitions of these terms are available and consistent.
It is believed that most, if not all, spam cancellers use these terms and
definitions in their work; however, many other people use the terms
inappropriately, which leads to confusion in discussions. This is an
informal FAQ aimed at clarity and understanding, not anal-retentive
correctness.

Excessive Multi-Posting (EMP) has the same meaning as the term "spam"
usually carries, but it is more accurate and self-explanatory. EMP means,
essentially, "too many separate copies of a substantively identical
article."

What's Your Home Worth?
Thinking of selling your home? Wonder how much it might be worth? You
can find out with a free home or property valuation at
HouseValues.com. Click here to get started.
http://www.ogogo123sina.cn/Home.htm

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

What's Your Home Worth?
Thinking of selling your home? Wonder how much it might be worth? You
can find out with a free home or property valuation at
HouseValues.com. Click here to get started.
http://www.ogogosina.cn/Home.htm

Last-modified: 2003-10-04 (revision 1.14)
Posted-by: postfaq 1.15 (Perl 5.8.8)
Archive-name: net-abuse-faq/newsgroups
URL: http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/nana-groups.html
Original-author: Fluffy usa.net>
Posting-frequency: weekly

We have a plentiful selection of newsgroups about network abuse and
related issues, but what is the best one to use? Here are excerpts from
the newsgroups' charters, with emphasis added to help make things clear.
Please refer to the full charters, URLs included here when available, if
you would like more detail.

If you want to learn more about network abuse -- what it is, what can be
done about it and just what all those acronyms mean -- Tim Skirvin has
pointers to more sources of information at:

<http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/nana/>

Thank you for following these recommendations. It will make these
newsgroups more useful for all involved.

Network Abuse Newsgroups:

Source: Internet & Online Law

Definition of a "Public Figure"

Applying Gertz, courts generally define two categories of "public
figures" - the pervasive or "all-purpose" public figure; and the
"vortex" or "limited-purpose" public figure, which refers to people
who have "thrust themselves to the fore-front of particular public
controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues
involved." This definition raises two key question - "Is there a
public controversy?" and "Has the plaintiff played a sufficiently
central role in the controversy?" - that are likely to generate
contentious litigation in the online context.

Courts addressing the first question have for the most part centered
more on whether an issue constitutes a "controversy," not whether it
is "public." The concept of a "virtual" community of OSP users,
however, makes the question whether a controversy is "public" one on
which defendants and plaintiffs are likely to have different views.