 | | Re: No gimmicks, just some free background images
|
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in article <Fq3o8y.6nK@lugnet.com>... (...) few (...) raised (...) something (...) more (...) know (...) even (...) I'm glad you used that last little quote. It highlights my point exactly. I've been reading (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 18-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn
|
|
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 (...) (25 years ago, 17-Feb-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn
|
|
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 (...) (25 years ago, 17-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 17-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just been spammed by Paul Koelewijn
|
|
(...) (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 (...) (25 years ago, 17-Feb-00, to lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
|
(...) No, I don't think he (*must* be a male) would ever give up his precious Mad Hatter® pseudo-- he thinks he *is* the Mad Hatter. (...) Sleeping dogs lay, people lie. But don't get me started on the depravity of man;-) -John (...) (25 years ago, 15-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: SPAM
|
|
(...) If you respond to spam you have just given the spammer your email addy which he now knows is active and will then sell it to whomever he chooses. To suddenly find porn in your mailbox is not an event I wish to experience. And once your addy (...) (25 years ago, 11-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: SPAM
|
|
(...) Whoops, slight mistake... The letter I received WAS signed. I guess that would make it a less-plausible spam, but not always. I sometimes get spams that start out "Hi, my name is ___. A mutual friend told me about you" or some sort of trash. (...) (25 years ago, 11-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
