 | | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn —Bill Farkas
|
| | | (...) It always makes me shake my head at how uptight some internet users are. What's the big deal - I mean, how hard is it to press the delete button. Some people are dying of cancer and don't complain as much. If the guy sent you a notice of a (...) (24 years ago, 17-Feb-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn —Jeff Johnston
|
| | | | | (...) I get literally hundreds of e-mail messages a day at home, and scores at work. I use the delete key a lot and sometimes I've 'missed' something and deleted an item I shouldn't have. So I should take more time and care? Fine, but that makes (...) (24 years ago, 17-Feb-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn —James Brown
|
| | | | | (...) (3 URLs) before you leap, please. While I will conceed that it isn't much of a pain for me to hit the delete key, it is a pain for me to hit the delete key several times a day. It is a pain to have to set up filters, and potentially miss mail (...) (24 years ago, 17-Feb-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | | | | (...) Agreed 100%. The biggest thing about spam that just steams me is the cost-shifting of advertising. In a traditional marketing situation, the advertiser pays the expense of hawking his product. With spam, the advertiser spends *nothing* -- all (...) (24 years ago, 17-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn —Bill Farkas
|
| | | | | | Hello Jeremy, First let me apologize, I agree with many of the replies that it was not a gentlemanly thing for me to have publicly criticized you in such a fashion. I meant you no disrespect personally, it's very easy to become dettached when you're (...) (24 years ago, 17-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | | | | (...) No offense taken. (...) But it is relevant to those of us who are employed in the computer networking industry. I, as a developer / administrator of networking technology, have a responsibility to myself and my career to ensure that wanton and (...) (24 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn —James Wilson
|
| | | | | (...) notice of a great deal on a set that you want you'd be posting a FOTW instead. (...) No, it's not that much of a pain to hit the delete key for one message, but when you get dozens every day, it's another story. Not to mention the fact that (...) (24 years ago, 17-Feb-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | the difference between the services —Franklin W. Cain
|
| | | | | | (...) [*WARNING*!!! This post is *TOTALLY* off topic, so if such messages offend you, *PLEASE* delete/skip this message *NOW*] This exchange just reminded me of something that a wise old Master Sergeant once told me, a way a remembering the (...) (24 years ago, 17-Feb-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: the difference between the services —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Hmmm. Seemed right *on-topic* in "off-topic" to me. Now if you had mentioned LEGO, I would have lit you up like a Christmas tree;-) -John (24 years ago, 17-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: the difference between the services —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) <looks left> <looks right> <leans close in to the monitor> "LEGO" <runs away> (24 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: the difference between the services —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) <bearing torch> Anyone see which way Bliss went? ;-)John (24 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn —William A. Swanberg
|
| | | | | Having also been "in an armed conflict on foreign soil" (in fact, I was in the middle of Iraq with the 1st Cav while the Marines were still sailing back and forth in the Arabian Gulf playing decoy, but I digress), I can say that the Gulf War and (...) (24 years ago, 17-Feb-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn —Bill Farkas
|
| | | | | | (...) This is an incredibly ridiculous statement. While the Army Airborne were the first troops on the ground (with M16's only), everyone knows that the Marines, thanks to the maritime prepositioning system, were the first fully equipped armed (...) (24 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn —Jeff Johnston
|
| | | | | | | (...) <snip> (...) lugnet.off-topic.mil...y-bluster? (24 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | | (...) I may have news for you--that "who" wasn't anyone actually doing the fighting. One of the benefits of being at the "top of the food chain", as it were, in an corporatist imperial state means being able to sit in your boardroom sipping (...) (24 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn —William A. Swanberg
|
| | | | | | | I, too, appreciate your pride in your service. But as to "top of the food chain," I have to disagree. I will admit that, to a certain extent, the Marines are an "elite" force, and this is precisely why they are not "at the top of the food chain." No (...) (24 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | | | | | | "William A. Swanberg" wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) <snip> (...) <snip> Go on boys, maybe TLC by following this, will realize it's time to start marketing a military theme. Look at this market potential..:-) Selçuk (24 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn —Bill Farkas
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Misconception. The Marines do far more than secure beaches. Why else were we in the forward areas of the desert and Viet Nam (and most conflicts for that matter)? The Marines, pound for pound, pack far more punch. We have staying power and (...) (24 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn —William A. Swanberg
|
| | | | | | | | "Bill Farkas" <kfar@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:Fq5B2D.I06@lugnet.com... (...) we in (...) staying (...) with the (...) Marines (...) Well, I wasn't going to mention the debacle that was Viet Nam, but since you brought it up... First, I (...) (24 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | (canceled) —James Powell
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn —William A. Swanberg
|
| | | | | | | | | | | "James Powell" <wx732@freenet.victoria.bc.ca> wrote in message news:Fq6DA5.5Gu@lugnet.com... (...) planet (...) be (...) Forces (...) Let's take these one at a time. 1) This *is* a family forum, so please use appropriate language. 2) Don't confuse (...) (24 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | My [blank] is bigger than your [blank] (was Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) While this is an interesting debate, may I remind you that this is a family forum? I'd rather you used more powerful rhetoric and less pungent words to get your point across... thanks. (24 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn —Kurt Williams
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Watch your mouth soldier boy. =) Regards, Kurt (24 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn —Bill Farkas
|
| | | | | | | | (...) My reference to Viet Nam was soley to point out the non-beach landing aspect, not that they were a main force. I agree with your assessment of the debacle over there, but that was due to politicians and not tacticians. Viet Nam had far more to (...) (24 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Hey now, try to stay on-topic in off-topic, soldier;-) -John (24 years ago, 1-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn —Troy Cefaratti
|
| | | | | | Bill Farkas <kfar@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:Fq3pFs.Cqn@lugnet.com... (...) in (...) the (...) Marines, (...) equipped (...) knows (...) force, (...) units and (...) unit (...) top of (...) I must point out that your statement, especially (...) (24 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Please remember to post on-topic —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | | | | (...) OK, I think it's definitely time to get this thread _away_ from .general (it's gotten waaaay off-topic, and the original post wasn't really on-topic for .general in the first place). The best place to continue this current branch of argument (...) (24 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn —Jeff Stembel
|
| | | | | | | (...) Nitpick Time! There are actually six banches of the military. Army, Navy, Marine Corp, Airforce, NOAA Corp, and the Public Health Service. And no, I am not kidding about the last one. :) Jeff "Broken sword and shield and tears that never fall" (...) (24 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn —Richard W. Schamus
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) list? (*Ducking*) Rich Have Fun! C-Ya! Legoman34 ***** Legoman34 (Richard W. Schamus)... (No, I don't work for TLC, but I want to...) Card carrying LUGNET MEMBER: #70 Visit (URL) & (URL) wait is over...) ..."The only thing we have to fear, is (...) (24 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn —William A. Swanberg
|
| | | | | | | | | Leaving out the quasi-military Coast Guard and Merchant Marine? For shame! -- William A. Swanberg CPT, SC Commander, 229th Signal Company (TACSAT) swanberg@msn.com "Jeff Stembel" <aulddragon@wamalug.org> wrote in message (...) (24 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Alright, now I'm worried. Public Health Service is part of the Defense Department? What's next, the interstate system? Steve (24 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn —William A. Swanberg
|
| | | | | | Actually, had you read the previous replies to the message you just replied to, you would see that most of this has already been covered. BTW, the 82nd had considerably more than just "their M16s" when they landed, as anyone who has had to hump a (...) (24 years ago, 21-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn —Ardjan Besse
|
| | | | (...) I also got this mail. In my opinion this is spam, though I don't really have a problem with lego-spam... (btw, I am since 2 1/2 year virtually spam-free, that means no get-money-quick or looking-for-girls spams!!!) What I don't like, is that (...) (24 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | | (...) What I don't like is the folks who have decided to voice their thoughts by responding to all. There's three more people who are now seeing the inside of my bit-bucket... Cheers, - jsproat (24 years ago, 19-Feb-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
